v «■ ' c^ 



v * • » / -/*, 










J </><v 







'\ o 



%.^ /M%^%^ Si 




r- 










^ 









v o '^Ts^ s # l V'-^A^ V*™N^ 






V 

7" 





•'.v-* ^*-'.^!'"^ ^•°^>^^.°, < 



0° , 



^0« 



w 



V 




o^ 













: ^ °* 

















^ s 



C3 ><\» 




A "^ 













^ O^ - ^lii^ « A o^ - Ull^ « <H 




^ 






u^ 







c 







w 






'+*.$ 






^0^ 



^ 

^ 









w 



•■ Q 



* <>> 



V,# .^v. -^. A * 









. ^**s % - r A c> ^* ****** A G ^- ^/TVT* A G ^ ^v 



^ ^ ■-• 



t ^0^ 






**% 



r^ 



v * v * , ^ \> ^ ^ * , -^ \> ^ ^ * ^ ^ v \ ^ ^ 







:%^ 



* 






v* ,& ^f 








P <?„ & 



r :M> 














* \ 
% <lI> 



s* «fe 




o^ Q. 



^> ^ 




** s '\^ ^'^TTs^^ 9?^^** s> \^" 9^'''Ty^\^ v 



« CIk 



« o. 











/. ■ 









\ ^o^ : 












^ '*, 



\ %.$ 






\ > _ i 



'. %# : 











ESSAYS 



SUPERNATURAL 

ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY, 

WITH SPECIAL EEFEREXCE TO TIIE 

THEORIES OF RENAN, STRAUSS, AND 
THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL. 



BY 



REV. GEORGE P. FISHER, M. A. 

PROFJESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN YALE COLLEGE. 



NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., 124 GRAND STREET. 

I860. 



V 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by 

CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 

Southern District of New York. 



3 



o 7 4 r 



JOHN F. THOW & 

PRINTERS. STEREOTYPERS, (f E 

5 GREENE STBF, K 




L C Control 



Number 




v^A ;>♦*.. 



*K 



/ I* 



PEEFACE. 



Although this volume does not claim the charac- 
ter of a complete treatise, yet the Essays which com- 
pose it form a connected whole ancT deal with the most 
important aspects of the general theme under which 
they are placed. That theme is the origin of the 
religion of Christ — whether it be " from heaven or of 
men." The validity of the distinction between the 
Natural and the Supernatural is assumed, and some- 
thing is done in various parts of the work — for exam- 
ple, in the Essay on Miracles — to elucidate this dis- 
tinction. The fact of the constant presence and 
agency of God in Nature is held to be perfectly con- 
sistent with the proposition that the world is a reality 
distinct from Him. 

This being his theme, the author has deliberately 
abstained, as far as was practicable, from discussing 
the special questions involved in the subject of Inspira- 
tion, such as the alleged discrepancies between the 



IV PREFACE. 

various Gospel narratives. The question here con- 
sidered is not that of Inspiration, but of Revelation. 
A great advantage is secured by keeping these two 
topics apart, and I have given heed to the canon of 
Paley that " substantial truth is that which, in every 
historical inquiry, ought to be the first thing sought 
after and ascertained." 

The portion of this work which has lately appeared 
in the form of Articles in Theological Reviews, has been 
much revised and, it is hoped, rendered more worthy 
to be submitted to the public. Especially is this true 
of the Essay on the Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, 
which has undergone not only a careful revision, but al- 
so a material amplification, since its first publication in 
the Bibliotheca Sacra. And in this place I gladly ex- 
press my acknowledgments to an accurate scholar, Mr. 
Ezra Abbott, of Harvard College Library, for a num- 
ber of important suggestions, as well as corrections, 
which he has kindly communicated to me, and of 
which I have availed myself in the present edition of 
that Essay. 

In the preparation of these dissert ati ens, the author 
has chiefly made use of German writers, because in 
Germany these subjects have been canvassed of late 
with more earnestness and a greater outlay of learning 
than elsewhere. Germany has been the theatre not 



PREFACE. V 

only of the most formidable assault upon the claims 
of Revelation, but also of the most effectual vindica- 
tion of those claims. But I have diligently resorted 
to the original authorities, and have withheld my 
sanction from statements which did not appear to be 
sustained by their testimony. Although many of the 
special topics which are handled in the following pages, 
have only recently been brought forward, I have still 
found frequent occasion to consult Professor Norton's 
Genuineness of the Gospels, a work which combines 
thorough learning with signal impartiality. I may 
be permitted to add that no attempt has been made to 
provide the reader with a bibliography upon the topics 
embraced in the present work. It would have been 
easy to multiply references to books, but it has been 
thought best to mention only such as are most impor- 
tant to the student. 

The leading feature of the present volume is the 
consideration given to the system of the Tubingen 
school of historical critics, and especially to the tenets 
of the late Dr. Baur, incomparably the ablest, as he 
is the most conspicuous, representative of this school. 
Although the Tubingen criticism is to be considered 
the ripe form of the one type of Unbelief peculiar to 
our age, as Deism was characteristic of the last century, 
and although this movement, from the learning and in- 



VI PREFACE. 

genuity of its promoters, is more entitled to notice than 
any other leading form of skepticism which has ever ap- 
peared in the Church, I am not aware that any full ex- 
amination of it has been attempted before in English, 
unless the work of Mr. Mackay, a zealous partisan of 
.the school, is to be counted an exception. 1 It will be 
observed that comparatively little space is devoted to 
the book of M. Kenan. This is due partly to the fact 
that much that might properly be said respecting his 
work, is anticipated in the previous Essays, and partly 
to the conviction that its claim to scientific attention is 
small, compared with that presented in the productions 
of Baur and Strauss. The same remark is applicable to 
the Essay on the opinions of Theodore Parker. 

These Essays are mainly devoted to the vindication 
of the genuineness and credibility of the New Testa- 
ment Narratives. But in the final Essay, I have ex- 
amined the Pantheistic groundwork on which most of 
the fabrics of skeptical criticism are reared. If- Pan- 
theism is here met by other arguments than those fur- 
nished in the Hamiltonian " philosophy of nescience," 
it is because this philosophy did not appear to be 
requisite, and for the still better reason that I am not 
persuaded of its truth. It would seem that the 

1 The Tubingen School and its Antecedents, by K. W. Mackay. 
London, 18G3. 



PREFACE. Vll 

human mind can know in a proper sense of the term — 
though it be inadequately — the Being above it, whom 
it yet resembles in spiritual constitution ; that it can 
exclude its own limitations without thereby turning 
its knowledge of the object into a mere negation. But 
whatever may be the reader's opinion upon this ques- 
tion, the considerations which are here advanced in 
refutation of Pantheism remain valid, and are sum" 
cient, it is believed, for their end. 

On one point it may be well to guard against mis- 
construction. From the prominence given to the 
subject of miracles, it might be supposed by a cursory 
reader, that these are considered the leading proof of 
Revelation. That the fact is quite otherwise, a more 
attentive perusal of this volume would immediately 
show. On the contrary, it is claimed that faith in the 
primal verities of religion has an independent root 
of its own. Such is the ancient and accepted teaching 
of Christian theology ; the view not only of the Reform- 
ers, but also of all the mediaeval writers, including 
even the free- thinking Abelard. In keeping with this 
doctrine respecting the origin of faith in general, it is 
further held that the principal, most convincing source 
of faith in the divine origin of .Christianity is the im- 
pression directly made on the spirit by the teaching, 
the life, and the death of its founder, and by the 



Vlll PREFACE. 

adapted n ess of the Christian system to the practical 
necessities of the soul. But while all this is true, the 
investigation of the historical origin of Christianity is 
by no means superfluous. It must be remembered 
that the number of minds whose immediate discern- 
ment of the excellence of the Gospel delivers them 
from all doubt, and enables them to dispense with 
other proof of its divine origin, is comparatively small. 
The greater number of the cultivated class need to be 
fortified by evidence of a different nature ; they need 
at least that obstacles should be removed out of the 
way, and that the historical conscience, if the phrase 
may be allowed, should be freed from uncomfortable 
misgivings. And it surely behooves the preacher of 
Christianity to address himself to the consideration of 
living questions, and not be content with answering 
objections which are no longer rife in the minds of 
thinking men. The older Apologies, like the ordnance 
of a former day, contain most valuable materials, but 
they are no longer serviceable until they are refitted 
in accordance with an altered state of things. 

Yet the disappearance of one after another of the 
previous types of unbelief, while the Christian faith 
still remains a living power, may teach a lesson of 
modest}^. It is too much the habit of a class of writers 
to speak of Christianity as an antiquated system, and 



PREFACE. IX 

of faith in Revelation as something left behind by 
" the spirit of the age," " modern thought," " the con- 
sciousness of the nineteenth century." There is a 
cant on the side of unbelief, as well as among some of 
its opponents. It is well to bear in mind that these 
boastful phrases, or others analogous, were in vogue in 
the last century among those whom the later infidelity 
of the present day is forward to charge with shallow- 
ness. 

While these sheets are passing through the press, 
the information reaches me of the sudden death of my 
revered friend and former instructor, President Way- 
land. It affords me gratification, which I shall, per- 
haps, be pardoned for expressing, that he lived to read 
most of these Essays, and volunteered to convey to 
me in warm terms the too generous appreciation with 
which he regarded them. If any of these grave topics 
are found to be superficially handled, or if, in any re- 
spect, there is a want of fairness in the treatment of 
adversaries, these faults must be set down to a depar- 
ture from his example and from the enlightened spirit 
of his teachings. 

New Haven, October 7, 1865. 



CONTEXTS 



I. 

THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH 

WITH SKEPTICISM AND UNBELIEF . . 1 

II. 

THE GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL . . 33 

III. 

RECENT DISCUSSIONS UPON THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST 

THREE GOSPELS . . . 153 

IV. 

BAUR ON PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH AND THE 

CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF ACTS . . 205 

V. 

BAUR ON EBIONITISM AND THE ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC 

CHRISTIANITY 881 

VI. 

THE MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS . . . 339 

VII. 

STRAUSS\S RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY . . .421 



Xll CONTENTS. 

VIII. 

THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN . . . 433 

IX. 

THE CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS OF THEO- 
DORE PARKER 449 



AN EXAMINATION OF BAUR AND STRAUSS ON THE CON- 

VERSION OF ST. PAUL ... 459 

XI. 

THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES 471 

XII. 

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CONCERNING HIMSELF . . 515 

XIII. 

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD : IN REPLY TO THE POSITIY- 

IST AND THE PANTHEIST ... 539 



ESSAY I. 

THE MATURE OF THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH 
WITH SKEPTICISM AND UNBELIEF. 

We purpose, in several Essays, to examine the 
foundations of the Christian faith, with particular 
reference to some of the leading theories of unbelief 
which are in vogue at the present day. It will aid 
us in performing the work we have taken in hand, if, 
at the outset, we present a statement of what we 
conceive to be the real question or questions, with 
which the controversy of Revealed Religion with 
Skepticism, in our day, is chiefly concerned. This 
discrimination seems important on account of the 
multiplicity of controverted points relating to the 
subject, which are brought into popular discussion. 
Physical science, historical study, metaphysical specu- 
lation, has each its own inquiries to raise and doubts 
to suggest, and the effect of the simultaneous agita- 
tion of so many different topics_, none of them un- 
important to a Christian believer, is, doubtless, to 
breed confusion. We shall do a service, therefore, 
as we hope, to some of our readers, if we stop amid 
the " confused noise " of the battle, survey the field 
where so many are running to and fro, and direct at- 



Z NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

tention to the really essential points which are threat- 
ened, though not, as we trust, imperiled by the assault. 
We shall not delay long for the purpose of char- 
acterizing the prevailing tone of the existing skep- 
ticism and unbelief, as contrasted with similar phe- 
nomena at other periods in the past. Yet not to 
leave this interesting topic altogether untouched, we 
extract a passage from a late volume of Bampton 
Lectures, in which the peculiarity of the present de- 
velopment of skepticism is correctly described. "The 
unbelief of the present day," writes the author, *' dif- 
fers from that of the last century in tone and char- 
acter ; and in many respects shares the traits already 
noticed in the modern intellectualism of Germany, and 
the eclecticism of Prance. It is not disgraced by rib- 
aldry ; hardly at all by political agitation against the 
religion which it disbelieves : it is marked by a show 
of fairness, and professes a wish not to ignore facts 
nor to leave them unexplained. Conceding the exist- 
ence of spiritual and religious elements in human 
nature, it admits that their subjective existence as 
facts of consciousness, no less than their objective 
expression in the history of religion, demand explana- 
tion, and cannot be hastily set aside, as was thought 
in the last century in Trance, by the vulgar theory 
that the one is factitious, and the other the result of 
priestly contrivance. The writers are men whose 
characters and lives forbid the idea that their unbelief 
is intended as an excuse for licentiousness. Denying 



TONE OF SKEPTICAL WRITERS. 6 

revealed religion, they cling the more tenaciously to 
the moral instincts : their tone is one of earnestness : 
their inquiries are marked by a profound conviction 
of the possibility of finding truth : not content with 
destroying, their aim is to reconstruct. Their opin- 
ions are variously manifested. Some of them appear 
in treatises of philosophy : others insinuate themselves 
indirectly in literature : some of them relate to Chris- 
tian doctrines; others to the criticism of Christian 
documents : but in all cases their authors either leave 
a residuum which they profess will satisfy the long- 
ings of human nature, or confess with deep pain that 
their conclusions are in direct conflict with human 
aspirations \ and, instead of reveling in the ruin which 
they have made, deplore with a tone of sadness the 
impossibility of solving the great enigma. It is clear 
that writers like these offer a wholly different appear- 
ance from those of the last century. The deeper ap- 
preciation manifested by them of the systems which 
they disbelieve, and the more delicate learning of 
which they are able to avail themselves, constitute fea- 
tures formerly lacking in the works of even the most 
serious-minded deists, 1 and require a difference in the 
spirit, if not the mode, in which Christians must seek 
to refute them. 5 ' 2 A general description like the 
foregoing is, of course, liable to much exception and 
qualification when it is applied to particular individ- 

1 Such as Herbert and Morgan. 

2 Farrar's Bampton Lectures, Am. Ed., p. 307. 



4 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

uals. Yet the drift of it will be recognized as correct 
by those who regard with a penetrative eye the skep- 
tical literature of the day. In contrast with the past, 
unbelief is oftener now an infection than a willful 
attack. There are more at present who can be truly 
said to be afflicted with doubt. In the refinement and 
learning exhibited by the antagonists of Revelation, 
a decided superiority belongs to the present. Just 
place Paine's Age of Beason by the side of Renan's 
newly published Life of Christ! The difference of 
the old infidelity from the new, is instantly felt 
by the dullest observer. The spirit of the one is 
coarse and bitterly hostile to Christianity ; the depend- 
ence is more on railing than reasoning; and the 
warfare is waged without the aid of historical knowl- 
edge. The Deistical writers were, to be sure, fre- 
quently above Paine in the character of the weapons 
they employed, and in the temper with which they 
wielded them; and yet the name of Paine fairly sug- 
gests the general character of the movement, at least 
in its later stages. The work of Renan is the produc- 
tion of a scholar possessed of abundant philological 
and historical learning ; it is dedicated to a departed 
sister who aided in its composition; it abounds in 
expressions of sentiment ; it knows how to value 
much that is sacred to the Christian believer; it is 
founded upon laborious studies and upon travels in 
the land of the Bible. Skepticism has without doubt 
improved immensely in its general tone. And yet the 



SUBTLE CHARACTER OF MODERN SKEPTICISM. 5 

sketch which we have quoted above, in order to be 
full, would require to be qualified by a distinct men- 
tion of the fact that there is witnessed on the side of 
skeptical writers even of the more refined school, in 
our own times, the occasional development of an ani- 
mosity toward the Christian faith, that ill accords 
with their habitual tone, and seems to imply that after 
all there lies deep down in the heart an unwholesome 
fountain of bitter feeling with reference to the doc- 
trines and restraints of religion. 

For the reason that the peculiar traits of the mod- 
ern skepticism, and the peculiar character of the class 
who are affected by it, are not clearly discerned, the 
comparative strength of the infidel party in our times 
is underrated by .not a few even of Christian teachers. 
When the present is compared with the past, they 
begin at once to take a census of the known or 
avowed opposers of Christianity, and to put the result 
of this count of heads by the side of a similar reckon- 
ing made for an earlier epoch. They are not awake 
to the subtler form which skepticism has assumed. 
They fail to see that, though it be often less tangible 
and pugnacious, it is more diffused like an atmosphere. 
They are not aware how widely the seeds of unbelief 
are scattered through books and journals which find a 
hospitable reception even in Christian families. And 
they do not appreciate the significance of the fact that 
so large a number of the leaders of opinion on mat- 
ters outside of the sphere of religion, are adherents, 



O NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

more or less outspoken, of the skeptical school. 
Infidelity appears in better dress and in better com- 
pany than of old ; it takes on the function of the 
educator and social reformer ; it prefers a compromise 
with Christianity to a noisy crusade against it; but 
the half-friendly attitude it assumes may render the 
task of exposing and withstanding it all the more 
difficult. This ambiguous, fluctuating tone of the 
skepticism of our day, renders the analysis of its fun- 
damental position the more incumbent ; and this we 
attempt in the present Essay. 

We begin with remarking that the principal ques- 
tion at issue is not the Inspiration of the Scriptures. 
There is one point of view, as we shall shortly explain, 
from which the importance of this question is not ex- 
aggerated. But the mere question of the relation of 
human agency to divine agency in the production of 
the Scriptures is, in itself considered, of not so great 
moment. The fact of Inspiration is chiefly important 
as containing a guaranty for the authority of the 
Bible. If the Bible were exclusively the work of men, 
and yet came to us attended with a divine attestation 
to the truth of its contents, the main end for which 
Inspiration is desired and thought necessary, would be 
attained. The authority of the Scriptures as a Rule 
of Faith and Practice is the doctrine of prime value ; 
and Inspiration is required as a shield against the lia- 
bilities to hurtful error, which pertain to every exer- 
tion of the human mind without the aid of a higher 



THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. 7 

light. Something is gained, in our view, in the dis- 
cussion of these topics, when we steadily keep in mind 
the great object to be secured (if it can be consist- 
ently with truth), which is none other than the Protest- 
ant principle of the Authority of the Bible as a guide 
to the knowledge of duty and salvation. Whether 
he proceed from a scientific or a practical motive, the 
inquirer for religious truth has first to settle the 
question, where shall this truth be found. This is 
obviously the first step. Until this point is deter- 
mined, there is no criterion of truth, no "judge to end 
the strife " of diverse opinions. The Roman Catholic 
considers the Church, through the voice of its clergy 
and their head, the infallible expounder of truth. In 
every doubt, he has an arbiter at his side whose ver- 
dict, being the direct result of divine illumination, 
is held to be conclusive. The Protestant agrees with 
the Roman Catholic in holding to an objective stand- 
ard, but the standard with him is the Bible, which he 
feels authorized to interpret for himself. Denying 
that the Church is either the unerring interpreter of 
Scripture, or the infallible guardian of oral teaching of 
Christ and the Apostles, which tradition has handed 
down, he falls back upon the Bible itself. The Bible 
alone is his Rule of Paith. This we take to be the 
fundamental position of Protestantism on the question 
which, as we have said, stands at the threshold of all 
profitable religious inquiry. On the contrary, the 
Rationalist differs from both the Roman Catholic and 



8 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

Protestant, first in setting aside every objective Au 
thority, every Authority exterior to the mind itself, in 
matters of religion, and then in positively maintaining 
the sufficiency of Reason. Nothing is allowed to 
stand which cannot justify itself at this tribunal of 
his own understanding. There is no divine testimony 
which is separate from the thoughts and deductions 
of the human mind, and entitled to regulate belief. 
We may stop to observe that an ingenious German 
writer * has not improperly classified the Mystic with 
the Rationalist, so far as the former takes his own 
feeling for a source and criterion of truth, superior 
to any external Rule. The Mystic and the Ration- 
alist meet on the common ground of a renunciation 
of objective Authority, the one relying ultimately 
upon subjective reason, the other upon subjective 
feeling, for all his convictions of religious truth. And 
hence the Mystic is found to pass over, not unfre- 
quently, by a natural and easy transition, to the 
position of the Rationalist, the difference between 
them often depending for the most part on a diversity 
of temperament and education. Now the Protestant 
principle which is thus distinguished from that of the 
Romanist and of the Rationalist, is of vital moment ; 
and it stands in close connection with the other doc- 
trine of Biblical Inspiration. Give up the principle 
of the Normative Authority of the Bible, and we are 
driven upon the . alternative of either abjectly surren- 

1 Kliefoth, Mnleitung zur DogmengescJiichte. 



THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. 9 

dering ourselves to the Church, or of being set adrift, 
with the Rationalist, upon a sea of conjectures and un- 
certified reasonings of men. When, for example, I 
open an Epistle of St. Paul, and find there a passage 
upon the design and effect of the Saviour's death, and 
when I have ascertained the sense of the passage by a 
fair exegesis, may I then be sure of its truth? Or 
when I meet on the page of Scripture with practical 
injunctions pertaining to the duties of life, may I 
depend upon them as strictly conformed to the truth, 
and shape my conduct in accordance with them ? 
Here is the practical question concerning the Bible ; 
and the fact of Inspiration, or of supernatural aid 
enjoyed by the writers, owes its value chiefly to the 
assurance it may afford upon this primary question. 
It is interesting to observe that the most discerning 
of those theologians at the present clay who are dis- 
satisfied with the old formulas concerning Inspiration, 
feel the necessity of still abiding by the cardinal 
Protestant principle of the Normative Authority of 
the Scriptures. The Bible is still held to be the safe 
and sufficient Rule of Faith, upon which the Christian 
may cast himself without misgiving. Thus Dr. 
Arnold, holding that the apostles in the New Testa- 
ment predict the speedy Advent of Christ to judg- 
ment, is, nevertheless, careful to remark, that by 
the recorded words of Christ which declare this point 
not to be a subject of Revelation, and by the circum- 
stance that those injunctions of St. Paul which were 



10 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

founded in his own mind on this expectation, are 
expressly given as not having divine authority, but as 
counsel, the error of the apostles is prevented from 
having the effect to weaken in our estimation their 
general authority. That is to say, this anticipation 
was an error, but an error into which they do 
not profess that Inspiration led them, and from the 
misleading influence of which all are saved who 
attend to the words of Christ in the passage above 
referred to. Another witness to the importance of 
upholding the Protestant view upon this subject is 
the learned and brilliant theologian of Heidelberg, 
Dr. Rothe. In the essays l which he put forth a few 
years ago, and which he has since collected in a little 
volume, the old theological definitions in regard to 
Inspiration are frankly discarded for the reason that, in 
the opinion of the author, they were constructed from 
a mistaken conception of the nature and method of 
Divine Revelation. Not only does he extend the in- 
fluence of the human element, or factor, in the com- 
position of the Scriptures so far as to admit of the in- 
troduction of errors in physical science and in history, 
but he does not hesitate to allow that the Apostles fell 
into mistakes in reasoning and in their method of in- 
terpreting the Old Testament, and to distinguish be- 
tween the doctrines they set forth, and the arguments 

1 First published in the Studien u. Kritiken. They are collected 
by the Author under the title, Zur Dogmatilc. 



THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. 11 

to which they resort in confuting adversaries, and 
which are more or less the result of their own fallible 
reflection. In these and other particulars, Rothe 
departs widely from the accepted formulas of doctrine. 
And yet he maintains, and feels it necessary to 
maintain, the Normative Authority of the Scriptures. 
This he endeavors to save by his view that the Bible 
is not only a self-explaining, but, to some extent, also 
a self-correcting, book. If we are able to discern the 
imperfection of an ethical sentence, or ethical judg- 
ment, in one portion of the Scriptures — for example in 
the Psalms — we do this only by means of a more 
advanced ethical standard which the Gospels, or the 
Scriptures as a whole have given us, so that the Rule 
of Faith — the source of knowledge — still remains an 
objective one. We are still moving in the sphere of 
the Bible, seeing in the Bible's own teaching, judging 
by the Bible's own standard. A view not dissimilar 
from that of Rothe is suggested in various passages 
of the celebrated Letters of Coleridge on the subject 
of Inspiration. "Is it not a fact," he asks, "that 
the books of the New Testament were tried by their 
consonance with the rule, and according to the 
analogy, of faith ? Does not the universally admitted 
canon — that each part of the Scripture must be in- 
terpreted by the spirit of the whole — lead to the 
same practical conclusion as that for which I am now 
contending ; namely, that it is the spirit of the Bible, 
and not the detached words and sentences, that is in- 



12 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

fallible and absolute?" 1 It is foreign to our pres- 
ent purpose to criticise these views of Rothe, which 
have evidently made a strong impression in Ger- 
many, or the somewhat similar, though less guarded, 
declarations of Coleridge. We advert to them both, 
simply to illustrate wherein lies the importance of 
the doctrine of Inspiration, and how essential it is, 
even in the opinion of profound theologians who are 
counted among the most liberal of the adherents 
of the Evangelical system, to uphold the Protestant 
doctrine of an objective and on the icJiole unerring 
standard of religious truth and duty. 

Yet the subject of the Normative Authority of 
Scripture is of subordinate interest when compared 
with the debate that has arisen upon the historical 
reality of the Scriptural miracles. The attention df 
thoughtful men, everywhere, is concentrated upon 
the question of the verity of those parts of Scriptural 
history which describe miraculous events. If this 
be established, the speculative objections to the 
doctrinal system of Christianity at once fall to the 
ground. All opposition of this sort is then silenced, 
if not satisfied. On the other hand, if the miracles 
are disproved, Christianity is stripped of its essential 
peculiarity. The central fact of a Supernatural 
Interposition having for its end the restoration of 

1 Coleridge, Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, in his Work*, 
Am. Ed. vol. v. p. 612. 



THE QUESTION OF THE REALITY OF MIRACLES. 13 

man to communion with God, is lost. The Chris- 
tian system of doctrine is reduced to a mere product 
of the human mind, having no divine sanction, and 
mixed, we know not how largely, with error. That 
this question of the historical reality of the Scriptural 
miracles involves the whole claim of Christianity to 
be a Revelation, is plain, for Revelation and Miracle 
are inseparable from each other. In fact, the ablest 
skeptical writers of the present day have set them- 
selves to the work of undermining the evidence for 
the Scriptural miracles. To explain the origin of 
Christianity, and the origin also of the New Testa- 
ment narratives of supernatural events, on some 
hypothesis that shall dispense with the need of 
putting faith in the latter, is the problem which they 
are struggling to solve. The Life of Christ by 
Strauss, in both the earlier and the recent form, is 
simply an elaborate attempt to set aside miracles, 
by propounding some hypothesis more plausible 
than the old exploded theory of a wilful deception 
on the part of the early disciples. The Life of 
Christ by Renan is likewise little more than an effort 
to account for Christ and Christianity and the Chris- 
tian Scriptures, without giving credence to miraculous 
events. The recent criticism of the New Testament 
canon, embracing the attempt to impeach the gen- 
uineness of various books, is only a part of the great 
discussion of the historical truth of the New Testa- 
ment miracles ; for it is difficult to attack the credi- 



14 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

bility of the Gospel histories without first disproving 
their genuineness. This main issue is never with- 
drawn from the mind of writer or reader. The 
resources of learning and skill which are expended 
by the Tubingen school of critics with Baur at their 
head, and in turn by their antagonists, in reference 
to the authorship and date of the Gospels and of 
other portions of the New Testament, are only a 
chapter in the controversy to which we allude. The 
spectacle presented is that of a conflict for the pos- 
session of a place not so much valued for itself, as 
for being the key that carries with it another posi- 
tion on which all thoughts centre. Thus the real 
issue between the believer and the unbeliever has 
become distinct and conspicuous. Did Christ do 
the works which none other men could do? This 
is the vital question — we might almost say, the 
only question. The case of Christianity rests upon 
the decision of it. Its claim to a rank essentially 
different from that of other religions and philosophies, 
stands or falls according as this question is answered. 
Is the doctrine of God, or does Christ speak of him- 
self, uttering a human wisdom which, however rare, 
is only human, bearing upon it no loftier sanction, 
and even mixed with an amalgam of error ? 

This being a question so momentous, we have a 
right to expect of every one who enters into the dis- 
cussion of the character of the Scriptures, especially 
if he be understood to represent the Christian cause, 



THE QUESTION OF THE REALITY OF MIRACLES. 1 5 

that he shall declare himself in regard to it without 
ambiguity. Whatever view he may take upon special 
questions, upon this cardinal proposition of super- 
naturalism he has no right to appear to halt or to 
oscillate between two opinions. The volume of Essays 
and Reviews which lately kindled so great an excite- 
ment in the English Church, appears to us to be liable 
to this charge. In several of the dissertations that 
compose it, there is manifest an evasiveness and 
indecision, a disposition to pare down the supernatural 
in the Scriptures to a minimum, if not to doubt its 
existence altogether. An explicit, unshrinking avowal 
of a belief in the historical reality of the Christian 
miracles, would have redeemed that book, in our judg- 
ment, from its gravest fault. We remember that a 
critic of the Essays, in one of the English literary- 
journals, cited from the book one skeptical insinuation 
after another, appending to each the question: "but 
what of the Resurrection ? " This or that stricture 
may be just, or may not be — such was the purport of 
criticism — but what of the Resurrection of Christ from 
the dead ? On what ground do these authors stand ? 
Is it the design to shake the faith of men in super- 
natural Christianity and recommend a naturalistic 
theory ? If not, why this hesitation to commit them- 
selves to a bold avowal on the subject of miracles, and 
to let their readers see how much is implied in the fact 
of the Resurrection of Christ? The concession that 
a single miracle took place in connection with Chris- 



16 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

tianity imparts to this religion an unspeakable elevation 
and awfulness in the view of every considerate mind. 
Although in these remarks we have chiefly in mind 
the New Testament, yet we should be inclined to 
bring a similar accusation against Stanley, for the 
ambiguous tone of his recent History of the Jewish 
Church, did he not expressly disclaim the ability to 
sever, in his own mind, in many cases, the natural and 
the supernatural. We are con thru ally left afloat in 
regard to this most interesting and most important 
question. Now an event appears to be represented as 
miraculous, and in the next sentence it is resolved into 
a merely natural occurrence. Were it not for the 
distinct avowal of the author, to which we have advert- 
ed, his work would be justly chargeable with being 
written in a Jesuitical tone — a tone least of all corre- 
sponding with the author's character. For ourselves 
we must acknowledge our preference for a single page 
of severe scientific criticism, over a library of volumes 
like this of Dr. Stanley, wliere so little is decided and 
settled. What men crave in these days, is satisfaction 
upon the difficult questions whicli meet them in the 
early portions of the Old Testament, and, if at all in 
earnest, they will not be content to be put off with 
pleasant description. In striking contrast with the 
censurable uncertainty of the Essays and Revieivs 
upon the subject of miracles, is the tone of Rothe in 
the little work to whicli we have already alluded. 
Starting with the avowed design to oppose the 



THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION AN HISTORICAL ONE. 17 

views more commonly taken of the Scriptures, he 
is careful at the outset to avow his undoubting 
faith in miracles and in the supernatural character 
of Christianity. He desires it to be distinctly 
understood that on this subject he is full and clear. 
On this platform he will stand in the prosecution of 
the further inquiries to which he invites attention. 
Such a course alone is worthy of a theologian who has 
a nobler aim than merely to instill doubts concerning 
the justice of received views. 

Thus, the principal question in the controversy 
with unbelief is an historical one. Hardly a worse 
mistake can be committed in dealing with most 
skeptics at the present day, than to begin by insisting 
upon the inspiration of the Bible. We should rather 
place ourselves back in the position which the apostles 
occupied in preaching to the Gentiles, before the New 
Testament Scriptures were written. We should make 
it our first aim to substantiate the great facts which 
are recorded in the New Testament, and which formed 
the pith and marrow of the apostles' testimony. We 
must meet the skeptic on the ordinary level of histori- 
cal investigation, and bring before him the proof that 
the Gospel miracles were actually performed, sub- 
stantially as these histories of the New Testament 
narrate. There is no other common ground on which 
he and we can stand. Unless he can be satisfied of 
the credibility of the Gospels in these main particulars, 
it is useless to go farther and attempt to convince him 



18 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

that this body of writings is the product of Divine 
inspiration — much less that they contain no sort of 
error. The first and the great proposition to be estab- 
lished is, that God has made a supernatural revelation ; 
and this done, other points of truth may follow in 
their proper place. In this controversy, it behooves us 
to keep in mind the order of things to be believed. 
First comes the leading, the commanding truth, of a 
miraculous attestation to the mission of Jesus. Let 
this once become a firm conviction, and the next step 
is to ascertain his teaching and the contents of his 
religion. Every earnest mind will be ready to take 
this step ; will immediately look about for some 
authentic source of knowledge on this subject ; and 
then the peculiar character and claims of the Bible will 
be made a theme of investigation. 

While we hold that the direct question at issue 
with the skeptic and unbeliever is an historical one, we 
think that Apologists fall into a mischievous error in 
defining the nature of the evidence for Christian Reve- 
lation. This evidence, it is frequently said, being 
historical, is of a moral or probable kind, as distin- 
guished from demonstrative. The appreciation of 
it, therefore, it is added, depends in no small degree 
upon the spirit of the individual by whom it is 
weighed. So far we fully agree with the ordinary 
Apologist, and could say with him that the force 
which the historical proofs will actually have in per- 
suading the mind, differs with the tempers of feel- 



THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. 19 

ing which are brought to the consideration of them. 
Only we say, it is a fatal error to confine the inward 
qualification for judging of this evidence, to the 
virtues of candor, simplicity, and honesty. On the 
contrary, we freely concede and contend that these 
virtues may exist up to the ordinary measure, and 
even beyond it, and yet this evidence fail of leading 
the mind to conviction. We freely grant that unbe- 
lievers have lived in the past, and some live to-day, 
whose ability for historical investigation is of an 
unusually high order. In the treatment of secular 
history, they evince no want of candor and no exces- 
sive incredulity. And although they withhold their 
belief from the supernatural facts of Christianity, we 
cannot charge them with any marked disposition to 
pervert, conceal, or disparage the evidence by which 
these facts are supported. We would not for a 
moment deny that great names are on the roll of 
infidelity ; names of men who, to say the least, are 
not peculiarly liable to the charge of being uncandid 
and prejudiced in their investigation of any important 
subject. The Christian Apologist, as we think, is 
entitled and required to take higher ground, and to 
extend this qualification for appreciating the proofs 
of revelation beyond the common virtues of fairness 
and honesty. We are called upon distinctly to re- 
cognize the truth, that in the consideration of this 
subject we find ourselves in a sphere where the deep 
alienation of the human heart from God and Divine 



20 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

things exerts a powerful influence upon the judg- 
ment. 1 When we are called to determine the truth 
or falsehood of any historical statement, our judgment 
will be affected inevitably by the view we take of the 
conditions and causes at work in connection with the 
event which is alleged to have occurred. The same 
law is applicable to the Gospel history. Were these 
events ordinary, or unmiraculous events, the evidence 
for them would not only be convincing, but, for all 
thorough students, overwhelming. But another ele- 
ment may come in to arrest the judgment and defeat 
the natural effect of the proof; the circumstance, 
namely, that the events are thought to be either out 
of the range of possibility, or in the highest degree 
unlikely to occur. The evidence may be felt to be 
all that could be asked, and more than could be re- 
quired, in the case of any natural event, but the 
event being, if it occurred, a miracle, there is a positive 
incredulity beforehand, which, it may be, no amount 
of historical proof can overcome. This variable 
element, which may neutralize the strongest array 
of historical evidence, lies in the general habit of 
feeling with reference to supernatural things. At 
the bottom of unbelief is a rationalistic or unreligious 
temper. This truth is admirably set forth in one 
of the sermons of Arnold. "The clearest notion," 

1 It may be well to compare here what the New Testament 
itself has to say of the prerequisites of faith. See Matt. xi. 25 ; 
1 Cor. i. 19-27; and like passages. 



THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. 21 

he says, " which can be given of Rationalism would, 
I think, be this : that it is the abuse of the under- 
standing in subjects where the divine and human, 
so to speak, are intermingled. Of human things 
the understanding can judge, of divine things it 
cannot ; and thus, where the two are mixed together, 
its inability to judge of the one part makes it derange 
the proportions of both, and the judgment of the 
whole is vitiated. Tor example, the understanding 
examines a miraculous history: it judges truly of 
what I may call the human part of the case j that is 
to say, of the rarity of miracles, of the fallibility of 
human testimony, of the proneness of most minds 
to exaggeration, and of the critical arguments affect- 
ing the genuineness or date of the narrative itself. 
But it forgets the divine part, namely, the power and 
providence of God, that He is really ever present 
amongst us, and that the spiritual world, which 
exists invisibly all around us, may conceivably and 
by no means impossibly exist, at some times and 
to some persons, even visibly." This Rationalism, 
however, is a thing of degrees. Where not including 
an absolute disbelief in the realities of a higher world, 
it may still involve a practical insensibility to their 
influence. They are left out of the account in de- 
termining the question of the truth or falsehood of 
the New Testament history. We would make this 
variable element still more comprehensive, including 
within it the soul's sense of sin and discernment of 



22 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

the beauty of holiness. The judgment which the 
mind forms in respect to the proofs of Christian 
Revelation, is greatly affected by the presence or 
absence of certain experiences of the heart, which are 
rational and just, but which belong in a very un- 
equal degree to different men. An illustration of 
the general truth contained in Arnold's remark may 
be taken from another, but, in some respects, a kin- 
dred department. Let us suppose that a painting 
is discovered in some Italian town, which, it is 
claimed, is a work of Raphael. Now for the settle- 
ment of this question there are two sources of proof. 
There is, in the first place, all that bears on the 
outward authentication of the claim; as the consi- 
deration of the place where the painting is found, 
the integrity of those who had it in charge, the his- 
torical circumstances which are said to connect it 
with the artist to whom it is ascribed, the known 
facts in his life which tend to prove or disprove 
the truth of the pretension. As far as this kind 
of proof is concerned, any discriminating person 
may be pronounced competent to appreciate the 
degree of force that belongs to it, and, if the settle- 
ment of the point depended exclusively upon this 
branch of the evidence, to come to a just conclu- 
sion. But there is obviously another sort of evi- 
dence to be considered and weighed. The character 
and merits of the painting, as a work of art, in 
comparison with the high and peculiar excellence 



THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. 23 

of Raphael, must enter into the case, as a part of 
the proof. But how many are the acute and pains- 
taking men who are here disabled from estimating 
— from feeling, we might rather say, the force of 
this branch of the evidence ! They can examine 
the documents, they can question the witnesses, 
they can scrutinize all the outward testimony; but 
they are destitute of- the perceptions and feelings 
which are the indispensable qualification of a critic 
of art! The analogy holds true in this particular, 
that in the question of the verity of the Gospel 
histories, one great part of the evidence lies in a 
province beyond the reach of the faculty of under- 
standing, in the sense in which Arnold uses the 
term. The whole mode of thought and feeling con- 
cerning God, and His Providence, and His charac- 
ter, concerning human sin and human need, has a 
decisive influence in determining the judgment to 
give or refuse credit to the historical proof. Possi- 
bly God has so arranged it, that while this proof is 
sufficient to satisfy one whose spiritual eye is open 
to these realities, it is yet endued with no power to 
create conviction where such is not the fact. He 
who magnifies the presumption against supernat- 
ural interposition, not allowing for the moral emer- 
gency that calls for it, and hardly recognizing the 
Power from whom it must come, puts on a coat-of- 
mail which is proof against all the arguments for 
Revelation. Pie is shut up to unbelief by a logical 



24 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

necessity. The effect of the internal argument for 
the supernatural origin of the Gospel is directly 
dependent upon that habit of feeling, either ra- 
tionalistic or the opposite, the operation of which we 
have described. The various particulars of this 
argument, at least the most important of them, are 
lost upon an unreligious nature. The painful con- 
sciousness of sin, for example, is the medium through 
which is discerned the correspondence of the Gospel 
method of salvation with the necessities and yearnings 
of the soul. An experience of the disease opens the 
eye to the true nature and the value of the remedy. 
Such an impression of the evil of sin and of personal 
guilt, as men like Luther and Pascal have had, un- 
covers the deep things of the Gospel. In the Gospel 
system alone is the situation of the soul, which is 
slowly learned by the soul itself, understood and 
met. Another eye has looked through the heart 
before us, and anticipated the discovery, which we 
make imperfectly and by degrees, of its guilt and 
want. We might point out how the same self- 
knowledge will find in the spotless character of 
Christ a glory and impressiveness undiscernible by 
such as think not how great a thing it is to be free 
from sin. And so the tremendous power exerted 
by Christianity to reform the world — to move men 
to forsake their sins — will be estimated aright. It 
is no part of our present purpose to exhibit in detail 
the blinding effect of the rationalistic temper. Who- 



THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. 25 

ever carefully surveys the more recent literature of 
skepticism, will not fail to see the source from which 
it springs. It was by ignoring the existence and 
character of God that Hume constructed a plausible 
argument against the possibility of proving a miracle. 
The moment that the truth concerning God and the 
motives of His government is taken into view, the 
fallacy of Hume's reasoning is laid bare. The first 
canon which Strauss lays at the foundation of his 
criticism is the impossibility that a miracle should 
occur. Any and every other hypothesis, he takes for 
granted, is sooner to be allowed than the admission 
of a miraculous event. He assumes, from beginning 
to end, that "a relation is not historical, that the 
thing narrated could not have so occurred/' when 
"it is irreconcilable with known, and elsewhere uni- 
versally prevailing, laws." By this circumstance, 
before all others, the unhistorical character of a 
narrative is ascertained. 1 So M. Renan, at the out- 
set of his late work, remarks: "That the Gospels 
are in part legendary is evident, since they are full 
of miracles and the supernatural." 2 Afterward, 
though he does not with Strauss openly affirm the 
strict impossibility of a miracle, he lays down " this 
principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural 
relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always 
implies credulity or imposture, that the duty of the 

1 Strauss's Leben Jesu, B. I., S. 100. 

2 Renan's Vie de Jesus, p. xv. 



26 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

historian is to interpret it, and to seek what portion 
of truth and what portion of error it may contain/' 
But how futile is the attempt to convince one that 
an event has occurred, which he professes to know 
is either impossible, or never to be believed ! In 
other words, how futile to argue with one who begs 
the question in dispute ! 

The foregoing observations upon the reception 
that is given by skeptics at the present day to the 
proof of Christian miracles, bring us to the deeper 
and more general cause of unbelief, which is none 
other than the weakening or total destruction of 
faith in the supernatural. It is not the super- 
natural in the Scriptures alone, but the supernatural 
altogether, which in our day is the object of dis- 
belief. At the root of the most respectable and 
formidable attack upon Christianity — that which 
emanates from the Tubingen school of historical 
critics — is an avowed Pantheism. The doctrine of 
a God to be distinguished from the World, and 
competent to produce events not provided for by 
natural causes, is cast away. The apotheosis of 
Nature or the World, of course, leaves no room for 
anything supernatural, and a miracle becomes an 
absurdity. Indeed, the tacit assumption that a 
miracle is impossible, which we find in so many 
quarters, can only flow from an Atheistic or Pan- 
theistic view of the Universe. The Deist can con- 



INCONSISTENCY OF MODERN DEISM. 27 

sistently take no such position. He professes to 
believe in a living and personal God, however he 
may be disposed to set Him at a distance and to 
curtail His agency. He must therefore acknowl- 
edge the existence of a Power who is able at any 
moment to bring to pass an event over and beyond 
the capacity of natural causes. Nay, if his Deism 
be earnestly meant, he must himself believe in a 
miracle of the most stupendous character — in the 
creation of the world by the omnipotent agency of 
God. Holding thus to the miracle of creation as 
an historical event, he cannot, without a palpable 
inconsistency, deny that miracles are conceivable or 
longer possible. For no sincere Deist can suppose 
that the Creator has chained Himself up by physical 
laws of His own making, and thereby cut Himself 
off from new exertions of His power, even within 
the sphere where natural forces usually operate ac- 
cording to a fixed rule. One of the marked charac- 
teristics of our time, therefore, is the loose manner 
in which Deism is held even by those who profess 
it, as shown in their reluctance to take the con- 
sequences of their creed and their readiness to pro- 
ceed in their treatment of the subject of miracles 
upon Pantheistic principles. The theories and argu- 
ments of Strauss and the Tubingen skeptics, which 
are the offshoot of their Pantheistic system, are 
adopted, for example, by Theodore Parker, who pro- 
fesses to believe in the personality of God. But 



28 NATUKE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

though entertaining this different belief, it is plain 
that he generally brings to the discussion of miracles 
the feeling and the postulates of a Pantheist. His 
Deism is so far from being thorough and consistent, 
that he not only, here and there, falls into the Pan- 
theistic notion of sin, as a necessary stage of develop- 
ment and step in human progress, but also habitually 
regards a miracle as equivalent to an absurdity. 
A gifted female writer has lately put forth a plea in 
behalf of a Christless Theism which she wishes to 
see organized into a practical, working system. 1 
Anxious respecting the possible fate of the truths 
of Natural Religion in the crisis occasioned by the 
supposed downfall of faith in Revelation, she forgets 
that skepticism as to the supernatural origin of 
Christianity generally results from a prior adoption 
of an Atheistic or Pantheistic philosophy. The evil 
she dreads is not an accidental consequence, but an 
effective cause, of disbelief in the claims of the 
Gospel. At least, faith in Revelation and faith in 
the verities of Natural Religion sink together. The 
same writer forgets also that the doctrine of Theism, 
however supported by the light of Nature, came to 
us, in point of fact, from the Bible. The nations 
learned it from the Bible. It is a truth which we 
practically owe to Revelation. And as this is the 
case, so it is natural that with the denial of Revela- 
tion, that doctrine should be discarded. The result 

1 Frances Power Cobbe, Broken Lights. 



THE TENDENCY TO PANTHEISM. 29 

of previous experiments should warn against the 
indulgence of the hope that Natural Religion can 
succeed in the effort to embody itself in a practical 
system of worship. The Theophilanthropists of the 
French Revolution, who espoused the three principles 
— God, Virtue, Immortality — tried to maintain relig- 
ious worship. In Paris alone their assemblies at 
one time numbered not less than twenty thousand 
persons, and occupied ten churches. But there was 
not vitality enough in the system to keep it alive, 
and this apparently promising sect quickly melted 
away. In the ancient world, among thinking men, 
skepticism as to the supernatural on the one hand, 
and the Christian faith on the other, were the two 
combatants, and so it will be now. As far as this 
class are alienated from Christianity, they are more 
commonly alienated in an almost equal degree from 
all religious faith. Signs of such an obscuration of 
faith appear in various quarters. Not a few ill- 
supported speculations of physical science, which 
have been lately brought before the public, have 
their real motive in a desperate reluctance to admit 
a supernatural cause. The most unfounded con- 
jectures are furnished in the room of argument, so 
earnest is the desire of some minds to create the 
belief that the worlds were not framed by the word 
of God, and that things which are seen were made 
of things which do appear. To this we must refer 
the ambition of some philosophers to establish their 



30 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

descent from the inferior animals — a wild theory, 
only to be compared with the old mythologic doc- 
trine of transmigration. The disposition to remove 
God from any active connection with the world, or 
to transport Him as far back as possible into the 
remote past, is the real motive of this attempt, which 
can plead no evidence in its favor, to invalidate abso- 
lutely the distinction of species and discredit our 
own feeling of personal identity and separateness of 
being. There can be no doubt that a powerful 
tendency to Pantheistic modes of thought is rife at 
the present day. The popular literature, even in 
our country, is far more widely infected in this way 
than unobservant readers are aware. The laws of 
Nature are hypostatized — spoken of as if they were 
a self-active being. And not unfrequently the same 
tendency leads to the virtual, if not explicit, denial 
of the free and responsible nature of man. History 
is resolved by a class of writers into the movement 
of a great machine — into the evolution of events with 
which the free-will neither of God nor of man has 
any connection. 1 

We are thus brought back, in our analysis of 
the controversy with the existing unbelief, to the 
postulates of Natural Religion. On these the Chris- 

1 The tendencies to Naturalism, at work at the present day, 
are forcibly and comprehensively touched upon in Chapter I. 
of Bushnell's "Nature and the Supernatural" — a work which, 
in its main parts, is equally profound and inspiring. 



THE TENDENCY TO PANTHEISM. 31 

tian Apologist founds the presumption, or anterior 
probability, that a Revelation will be given. These, 
together with the intrinsic excellence of Christianity, 
he employs to rebut and remove the presumption, 
which, however philosophers may differ as to the 
exact source and strength of it, undoubtedly lies 
against the occurrence of a miracle. The antecedent 
improbability that a miracle will occur, disappears 
in the case of Christianity. The issue relates to the 
miracles ; but the ultimate source of the conflict is 
a false or feeble view, on the part of the unbeliever, 
of the primitive truths of religion. This will explain 
how a new awakening of conscience, or of religious 
sensibility, has been known to dispel the incredulity 
with which he had looked upon the claims of Revela- 
tion. 

It is more and more apparent that the cause of 
Natural Religion, and that of Revealed Religion, 
are bound up together. But the native convictions 
of the human mind concerning God and duty cannot 
be permanently dislodged. Atheism is an affront 
alike to the inquiring reason and the uplooking soul 
of man. Pantheism mocks his religious nature. It 
is inconsistent with religion — with prayer, with wor- 
ship — with that communion with a higher Being, 
which is religion. It is inconsistent, also, with 
morality, in any earnest meaning of the term; for 
it empties free-will and responsibility, holiness and 
sin, of their meaning. Every one who acknowledges 



32 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. 

the feeling of guilt to be a reality and to represent 
the truth, and every one who blames the conduct 
of another, in the very act denies the Pantheistic 
theory. Conscience must prove, in the long run, 
stronger than any speculation, no matter how plausi- 
ble. In the soul itself, then, in its aspiration after 
the living God and its conviction of freedom and 
of sin, there is erected an everlasting barrier against 
the inroads of false philosophy, and one that will 
be found to embrace within the shelter of its walls 
the cause of Christianity itself. 






ESSAY II. 

THE GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

The Gospel that bears the name of John is one 
of the main pillars of historical Christianity. Chris- 
tianity would indeed remain were the apostolic author- 
ship and the credibility of this Gospel disproved ; for 
before it was written, Jesus and the resurrection had 
been preached by faithful witnesses over a large part 
of the Roman world. Christianity would remain ; but 
our conception of Christianity and of Christ would be 
materially altered. The profoundest minds in the 
Church, from Clement of Alexandria to Luther, and 
from Luther to Niebuhr, have expressed their sense of 
the singular charm and surpassing value of this Gospel. 
In recent times, however, the genuineness of the fourth 
Gospel has been impugned. It was denied to be the 
work of John by individual skeptics at the close of the 
last century; but their attack was not of a nature 
either to excite or to merit much attention. Not until 
Bretschneider published (in 1820) his Probabilia did 
the question become the subject of serious discussion. 
But the assault which has been renewed by the critics 
of the Tubingen school, with Baur at their head, has 
more lately given rise to a most earnest and important 



/ 



34 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

controversy. The rejection of John's Gospel by these 
critics is a part of their attempted reconstruction of 
early Christian history. Starting with the assertion of 
a radical difference and hostility between the Jewish 
and the Gentile types of Christianity, — between the 
party of the Church that adhered to Peter and the 
original disciples, and the party that adhered to Paul 
and his doctrine, — they ascribe several books of the 
New Testament to the effort, made at a later day, to 
bridge over this gulf. The Acts of the Apostles pro- 
ceeds from this motive, and is a designed distortion 
and misrepresentation of events connected with the 
conflict about the rights of the Gentile converts. And 
the fourth Gospel is a product of the same pacifying 
tendency. It was written, they say, about the middle 
of the second century, by a Christian of Gentile birth, 
who assumed the name of John in order to give an 
apostolic sanction to his higher theological platform, in 
which love takes the place of faith, and the Jewish 
system is shown to be fulfilled, and so abolished, by 
the offering of Christ, the true paschal Lamb. We 
hold that the fundamental proposition, which affirms a 
radical hostility between Pauline and Petrine Chris- 
tianity, can be proved to be false, even by the docu- 
ments which are acknowledged by the Tubingen school 
to be genuine and trustworthy ; and that the super- 
structure which is reared upon this foundation can be 
proved, in all its main timbers, to be equally unsub- 
stantial. In the present Essay, however, we shall take 



PLAN- OF THE ESSAY. 35 

up the single subject of the authorship of the fourth 
Gospel, and shall make it a part of our plan to refute 
the arguments which are brought forward by the skep- 
tical critics on this question — the most important 
critical question connected with the New Testament 
canon. But while we propose fairly to consider these 
arguments, we have no doubt that the attack upon the 
genuineness of John has its root in a determined 
unwillingness to admit the historical reality of the 
miracles which that Gospel records. This feeling, 
which sways the mind of the critics of whom we 
speak, is the ultimate and real ground of their refusal 
to believe that this narrative proceeds from an eyewit- 
ness of the life of Jesus. And were there nothing in 
Christianity to remove this natural incredulity, and to 
overturn the presumption against the occurrence of 
miracles, the ground taken by the Tubingen critics in 
reference to this question might be reasonable. It is 
right to observe that behind all their reasoning there 
lies this deep-seated, and, in our opinion, unwarrantable 
prejudice. 

We have recorded below the titles of some of the 
more recent defences of the Johannean authorship : ' 
Bleek's Introduction, in which the author discusses 

1 Bleek's Eirileitung in das Ml T., 1862, and Beitrage zur Evan- 
gelien-Kritik, 1864. Meyer's Kom. uber das Evang. des Johannes, 3* 
A., 1856. De Wette'8 Kom. uber das Evang. des Johannes, 4 e ed. 
(edited by Bruckner), 1852. Schneider's Aechiheit des JoTiann. 
Evang., 1854. Mayer's Aechtlieit des Evang. nacli Johann., 1854. 
Ebrard's WUsenchaftl. Kvitik der Evangel. Geschichte, 2 9 A., 1850, pp. 



36 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

the question at length, with his wonted clearness and 
golden candor, and his Contributions to the Criticism of 
the Gospels, in which some important points are treated 
more fully ; Meyer's Introduction to his Commentary 
on John, which contains a brief, condensed exhibition 
of the principal points of argument; Bruckner's 
edition of De Wette's Commentary on John, in which 
the later editor has presented the internal proofs with 
much force, and has noticed in detail the interpretations 
of Baur ; Schneider's little tract, which handles with 
ability certain parts of the external evidence, but falls 
far short of being a complete view ; Ewald's Essays, 
which contribute fresh and original thoughts upon the 
subject, but are not without faults in opinion as well as 
temper • Ebrard's Critical Examination of the Evangeli- 
cal History, which, notwithstanding an occasional flip- 
pancy of style and tendency to overstatement, contains 
many valuable suggestions ; and Mayer's copious 
treatise, in which the external testimonies are ably con- 
sidered, though too much in the temper of a contro- 



828-952. Ewald's Jahrb., III. s. 146 seq., V. s. 178 seq., X. s. 83 seq. 
— The following are among the most important Essays in opposition 
to the Genuineness of John : Baur, KritiscJie Untersuchungen uber 
die Kanon. Emngelien (1847), and Die Johanneische Frage u. ihre 
neuesten Beantwortungen, in Baur and Zeller's TheologiscTie Yahrbu- 
cher, 1854, pp. 196-287; Zeller, Diedussem Zeugnisse uber das Daseyn 
und den Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums, in his Theol. Tahrb. 1845, 
pp. 579-656, comp. 1847, pp. 136-174 ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien u. 
s. w. (1854) ; Strauss, Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volh (1864), 
p. 62 seq. 



RESIDENCE OF JOHN AT EPHESUS. 37 

versialist, and with occasional passages not adapted to 
convince any save members of the Roman Catholic 
church, of which the author is one. We intend to 
present our readers with a summary of the arguments, 
most of which are touched upon in one or another of 
these writers ; although we lay claim at least to 
independence in weighing, verifying, and combining 
the various considerations which we have to bring 
forward. 

That the apostle John spent the latter part of his 
life in Proconsular Asia, in particular at Ephesus, is a 
fact fully established by trustworthy testimony of 
ancient ecclesiastical writers. At the conference of 
Paul with the other apostles in Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1 
seq. ; Acts xv.), which occurred about twenty years 
after the death of Christ, John is mentioned, in con- 
nection with Peter and James, as one of the pillars of 
the Jerusalem church. Whether he was in Jerusalem 
on the occasion of Paul's last visit, we are not informed. 
It is in the highest degree probable that John's resi- 
dence at Ephesus began after the period of Paul's 
activity there, and either after or not long before the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Among the witnesses to the 
fact of his living at Ephesus in the latter part of the 
second century, Polycrates and Irenaeus are of especial 
importance. Polycrates was himself a bishop of 
Ephesus near the end of the second century, who had 
become a Christian as early as a. d. 131, and seven 



38 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

of whose kinsmen had previously been bishops or 
presbyters. In his letter to Victor, he expressly says 
that John died and was buried at Ephesus. 1 Irenaeus, 
who was born in Asia, says of the old presbyters, 
immediate disciples of the apostles, whom he had 
known, that they had been personally conversant with 
John, and that he had remained among them up to the 
times of Trajan (whose reign was from the year 98 to 
117). Some of them, he says, had not only seen John, 
but other apostles also. 2 Whether the ancient stories 
be true or not, of his fleeing from the bath on seeing 
there the heretic Cerinthus, of his recovering the young 
man who joined a company of robbers, or the more 
probable story, found in Jerome, of his being carried 
in his old age into the Christian assemblies, to which 
he addressed the simple exhortation : " Love one 
another," they show a general knowledge of the fact 
of his residing at Ephesus, and of his living to an 
extreme old age. 3 His Gospel, also, according to the 
testimony of Irenaeus, Clement, and others, and the 
general belief, was the last written of the four, and the 
tradition places its composition near the close of his 
life. 

1 Euseb., Lib. V. c. 24 ; cf. Lib. III. c. 31. 

2 Adv. Haer., Lib. II. c. 22, al. 39. § 5. 

3 Iren. adv. Haer., Lib. III. c. 3. §4. (Euseb., Lib. IV. c. 14)— 
Clem. Alex., Qui* dives salvetur, c. 42. (Euseb., Lib. III. c. 23.) — 
Hieron. in Ep. ad Galat. VI. 10. 



the external evidence. 39 

The External Evidence. 

Mayer begins his argument by an appeal to Jerome 
and Eusebius ; the one writing in the later, and the 
other in the early, part of the fourth century ; both 
having in their hands the literature of the Church 
before them; both diligent in their researches and 
inquiries ; both knowing how to discriminate between 
books which had been received without contradiction, 
and those whose authority had either been disputed or 
might fairly be questioned ; and yet neither having any 
knowledge or suspicion that the fourth Gospel was not 
known to the writers of the first half of the second 
century, with whom they were familiar. This appeal 
is not without force ; but instead of dwelling on the in- 
ference which it appears to warrant, we choose to begin 
with the unquestioned fact of the universal reception 
of the fourth Gospel as genuine in the last quarter of 
the second century. At that time we find that it is 
held in every part of Christendom to be the work of 
the Apostle John. The prominent witnesses are Tertul- 
lian in North Africa, Clement in Alexandria, and 
Irenaeus in Gaul. Though the date of Tertullian's 
birth is uncertain, a considerable portion of his life 
fell within the second century, and his book against 
Marcion, from which his fullest testimony is drawn, was 
composed in 207 or 208. His language proves the 
universal reception of our four Gospels, and of John 
among them. These together, and these exclusively, 



40 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

were considered the authentic histories of the life of 
Christ, being composed either by apostles themselves 
or by their companions. 1 The testimony of Clement 
is the more important from his scholarly character and 
his wide acquaintance with the Church. He became 
the head of the Catechetical school at Alexandria about 
the year 190. Having been previously a pupil of 
various philosophers, he had in his mature years sought 
instruction from Christian teachers in Greece, in Lower 
Italy, in Syria, in Palestine, as well as in Egypt ; and 
his works which remain prove his extensive learning. 
Not only is the genuineness of the fourth Gospel an 
undisputed fact with Clement, but, not to speak of 
other testimony from him, he gave in his lost work, 
the Institutions, quoted by Eusebius, "a tradition 
concerning the order of the Gospels which he had 
received from presbyters of more ancient times ; " that 
is, concerning the chronological order of their composi- 
tion. 2 But of these three witnesses, Irenaeus, from the 
circumstances of his life as well as the peculiar charac- 

1 Adv. Marcion., Lib. IV. c. 2 ; also c. 5. He says in this last 
place : " In snmma, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et 
ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis ; pariter utique constabit, id 
esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit 
sacrosanctum." Then shortly after : " eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum 
apostolicarum caeteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde 
per illas, et secundum illas habemus : " here follows the enumeration 
of the four. It is historical evidence — the knowledge possessed by 
the churches founded by the apostles, — on which Tertullian builds. 

2 Euseb., Lib. VI. c. 14. That the four Gospels alone were re- 
garded as possessed of canonical authority is evident from other 



THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : IRENAEUS. 41 

ter of his testimony, is the most important. A Greek, 
born in Asia Minor about the year 140, coming to 
Lyons and holding there first the office of presbyter, 
and then, in 178, that of bishop, he was familiar with 
the Church in both the East and the West. Moreover, 
he had in his youth known and conversed with the 
aged Poly carp of Smyrna, the immediate disciple of 
John, and retained a vivid recollection of the person 
and the words of this remarkable man. Now Irenaeus 
not only testifies to the universal acceptance in the 
Church of the fourth Gospel, but also argues fancifully 
that there must be four and only four Gospels to stand 
as pillars of the truth ; thus showing how firmly set- 
tled was his faith, and that of others, in the exclusive 
authority of the canonical Gospels. 1 To the value of 

places in Clement. In reference to an alleged conversation between 
Salome and Jesus, Clement says: "We have not this saying in the 
four Gospels which have been handed down to us, but in that according 
to the Egyptians, — iv tois irapabebopLevots rjpuv T€TTapo~iv evayyeXlots ovk 
fyopcv to prjrov, aXX* kv ra> kcit AlyvnTiovs. Strom., Lib. III. C. 13. 
(See Lardner, Vol. II. pp. 236 and 251). 

1 Adv. Haer., Lib. III. c 1. § 1. This noted passage on the four 
Gospels thus begins : " Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nos- 
trae cognovimus, quam per eos, per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos ; 
quod quidem tunc praeconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in 
scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostrae 
futurum." Like Tertullian, he makes his appeal to sure historical 
evidence. In speaking of Polycarp and the men who followed him, 
he says of the former (III. 3. 4) : "qui virmulto majoris auctoritatis 
et fidelior veritatis est testis, quam Yalentinus et Marcion et reliqui, 
qui sunt perversae sententiae." The curious attempt to show that 
there could not be more or fewer than four authoritative Gospels is in 
Lib. III. c. 11. § 8. 



42 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

his testimony we shall have occasion again to refer. 
We simply ask here if it was possible for Irenaeus to 
express himself in this way — to affirm not merely the 
genuineness of the four Gospels, but the metaphysical 
necessity that there should be four — if John's Gospel 
had been made known for the first time during his 
lifetime, or shortly before. With these noteworthy 
witnesses, we associate the great name of Origen, the 
successor of Clement at Alexandria, although Origen's 
theological career is later, terminating near the middle 
of the third century, he having been born but fifteen 
years before the end of the second ; for his extensive 
journeys through the Eastern Church, and as far as 
Rome, and especially his critical curiosity and erudition, 
together with the fact that he was born of Christian 
parents, give extraordinary weight to the evidence he 
affords of the universal reception of John's Gospel. 
In the same category with Irenaeus, Clement, and 
Tertullian, belong the Canon of Muratori, or the list 
of canonical books which Muratori found in an old 
manuscript in the Milan library, and which is certainly 
not later than the end of the second century; and 
the ancient Syriac version of the New Testament, 
the Peshito, having a like antiquity. In both these 
monuments the Gospel of John is found in its proper 
place. Nor should we omit to mention here Polyc- 
rates, the bishop of Ephesus, who, as we have said, 
represented the Asia Minor churches in the controversy 
concerning the celebration of Easter in the year 196, 



THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 43 

and in his letter to Victor, the Roman bishop, alludes 
to John, who, tie says, "leaned upon the Lord's 
breast," 6 em to Grrj&og tov xvq'lov avantocov} 
Even Hilgenfeld, one of the most forward of the 
Tubingen critics, does not longer deny that the expres- 
sion is drawn by Polycrates from John xiii. 25 (xxi. 
20). It proves the acceptance of John's Gospel by 
the Christians of Asia Minor. 

Looking about among the fragments of Christian 
literature that have come down to us from the second 
half of the second century, we meet w r ith Tatian, sup- 
posed to have been a pupil of Justin Martyr, though 
after the master's death the disciple swerved from his 
teaching. It is now conceded by Baur and Zeller that 
in his apologetic treatise, the Oratio ad Graecos, com- 
posed not far from the year 170, he quotes repeatedly 
from the Gospel of John. 2 There is also no reason to 
doubt that his work entitled Diatessaron — a sort of 
exegetical Harmony — was composed upon the basis of 
our four Gospels. Eusebius says that Tatian "having 
formed a certain body and collection of Gospels, I 
know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that 
is, the Gospel by the four, or the Gospel formed of the 
four, which is in the possession of some even now." 3 

1 Euseb., Lib. Y. c. 24. 

2 The following are examples, — Oratio, c. 13 : xai tovto Ivtiv apa 

to elprjfxevov ' rj crKoria to (pci>s ov KaTaXapftdvei. C. 19 : Trdvra vtt civtov, 
Kai xvpis civtov yeyovev ovbe eu. C. 5 : 6 Adyoj Iv apxfj yevinj^eis. C. 4 : 
rrvtvp.a 6 9eoj. See Bleek, s. 229. 
• Lib. IV. c. 29. 



44 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Precisely how the work was constructed from the 
four Gospels, Eusebiu^ appears not to have known. 
He testifies, however, to the fact of its being in the 
hands of catholic Christians. At the beginning of the 
fifth century Theodoret tells us that he had found 
two hundred copies of Tatian's work in circulation, and 
had taken them away, substituting for them the four 
Gospels. 1 A Syriac translation of this work began, 
according to a later Syrian writer, Bar Salibi, with the 
opening words of the Gospel of John i " In the begin- 
ning was the Word." To this Syriac edition, Ephraem 
Syrus, who died in 378, wrote a commentary, as Syriac 
writers inform us ; and this translation must therefore 
have been early made. The attempt of Credner to 
invalidate this evidence on the ground that the Syrians 
confounded Tatian with Ammonius, the author of a 
Harmony in the early part of the third century, is 
overthrown by the fact that Bar Salibi distinguishes 
the two authors and their works. 2 Considering all the 
evidence in the case, together with the fact that Tatian 
is known to have quoted the Gospel of John in his 
Oratio, there is no room for doubting that this Gospel 
was one of the four at the foundation of the Diatessa- 
ron. Contemporary with Tatian was Theophilus, who 
became bishop of Antioch in 169. In his work Ad 
Autolycum, he describes John's Gospel as a part of the 
Holy Scriptures, and John himself as a writer guided 

1 Theodoret, Haeret, Fab., I. 20, as cited by Bleek, s. 230. 

8 See Meyer's Einl, s. 9. Lardner, Vol. II. p. 445. Bleek, s. 230. 



THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 45 

by the Holy Spirit. 1 This explicit statement is a most 
weighty item of evidence. In addition to this, Jerome 
states that Theophilus composed a commentary upon 
the Gospels, in which he handled their contents synop- 
tically : " quatuor evangelistarum in mram opus dicta 
compingens." 2 There is no good reason for questioning 
the statement of Jerome respecting a work with which 
he appears to have been himself acquainted. A contem- 
porary of Theophilus is Athenagoras. His acquaint- 
ance with the Prologue of John's Gospel may be 
inferred with a high degree of probability from his 
frequent designation of Christ as the Word. " Through 
him," he says, " all things were made, the Father and 
Son being one ; and the Son being in the Father, and 
the Father in the Son ;" 3 — language obviously founded 
on John i. 3; x. 30, 38; xiv. 11. Another contem- 
porary of Theophilus, Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis 
in Phrygia, in a fragment found in the Paschal 
Chronicle, makes a reference to the pouring out of 
water and blood from the side of Jesus (John xix. 34), 
and in another passage clearly implies the existence 
and authority of the fourth Gospel. 4 The Epistle of 
the churches of Vienne and Lyons, written in 177, 

1 ' OZev biftdcrKovoiv fjpas at ayiai ypa(pa\ Kai ndvres oi nvevparotpopoi, 
e£ hv 'loodwrjs Ae'yei* Iv apxfi , k.t.X., quoting John i. 1, 3 (Lib. II. 
c. 22). 

3 Hieron. de viris ill., 25, and Ep., 151. Bleek, s. 230. 

3 Suppl. pro Chri&tianis, c. 10. 

4 Chron. Pasch., pp. 13, 14, ed.Dindorf, or Eolith's Reliq. Sacrae, 
I. 160, 161, 2d edit. See Meyer's Einl., s. 9. There appears to be no 



46 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

and presenting an account of the sufferings of their 
martyrs in their great persecution under Marcus 
Aurelius, an epistle from which Eusebius gives copious 
extracts, 1 contains a clear reference to John xvi. 2, in 
the passage where they say ; " Then was fulfilled that 
which was spoken by our Lord, that the time will come 
when whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth 
God service." The same epistle, applying the thought 
of 1 John iii. 16 (comp. John xv. 12, 13), praises the 
love of one of their martyrs who " was willing in 
defense of the brethren to lay down his own life." 2 
But every testimony to the first epistle is, for reasons 
to which we shall advert hereafter, virtually a testimony 
for the Gospel. 

We go back now to the first half of the second 
century, and among the remnants of early Christian 
literature which remain, where so much has irrecover- 
ably perished, the writer who is most entitled to con- 
sideration is Justin Martyr. He was born about the 
year 89, and his life extended at least ten years beyond 
the middle of the next century. A native of Elavia 
Neapolis, near the ancient Sichem, he had visited vari- 
ous countries, having been at Alexandria and Ephesus 
before he came to Rome. He had, therefore, an exten- 
sive acquaintance with the Church. It is well known 

sufficient reason for questioning the genuineness of these fragments, 
as is done by Lardner (Vol. II. p. 315), and Keander {Church Hist, 
Vol. I. p. 298, N. 2). See Schneider, s. 52. 

1 Euseb., Lib. V. c. 1. 

8 Epist.Eccl, Vien. et Zugd., cc. 3,4. Eouth. Reliq. Sacrae, I. 298, 300. 



THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : JUSTIN. 47 

that Justin in different places refers to works which 
are styled by him the Records or Memoirs by tke 
Apostles and their Followers or Companions, and which, 
as he observes, " are called Gospels." l He quotes 
from these as the authentic and recognized sources of 
knowledge respecting the Saviour's life and teaching. 
He further states that they are read on Sundays in the 
Christian assemblies, where " all who live in cities or in 
country districts " meet together for worship. They 
are read, he says, in connection with the writings of the 
Old Testament prophets : and when the reader con- 
cludes, the people are instructed and exhorted " to the 
imitation of these excellent things." 2 The evangelical 
histories which he has in mind, then, were used in the 
public worship of Christians everywhere. What were 
these Records or Memoirs? This title, we may 
observe, was probably given to the gospel histories, 
partly for the reason that in Justin's view they bore a 
character analogous to Xenophon's Memorabilia of 
Socrates, and also because it was a designation intelli- 
gible to those for whose benefit he was writing. Of the 

1 ra dnopvrjp.ovevp.aTa tccv dnoaToXdiV. Apol., I. C. 67- drropvqpovev- 
ixaai, a (prjpi lirb rcov dnoa-roXaiv avrov Kai t<ov eneivois irapaKoXov^a-dv- 
toov <TVVTcrdx~au Dial. C. Thyp7i., C. 103. ol yap diroaroXoi Zv rois 
yevopivois vtt avrcov dnop.vrip.ovfvpao^LV, a KaXelrai fvayye'Xia, ovtus 
napedaxav. Apol., I. C. 66. Justin twice uses the term to evayyeXiovi 

as the later fathers often do, to denote the Gospels collectively. 
(Dial. c. Tryph., cc. 10, 100.) This designation implies that the Gos- 
pels to -which he refers — the collection of Gospels — were possessed of 
an established authority. 
a Apol, I. c. 67. 



48 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

direct citations from these Gospel Memoirs in Justin, 
ajid of the numerous allusions to sayings of Christ and 
events in his life, nearly all plainly correspond to pas- 
sages in our canonical Gospels. That the quotations 
are inexact as to phraseology, is not a peculiarity of 
Justin. He probably quotes from memory ; and for 
his purpose it was not requisite that he should be 
verbally accurate. 

Before we proceed to speak of his use of John in 
particular, we will advert to the question which has 
been warmly discussed, whether he quotes from other 
gospel histories than those in our canon. Considering 
that the cases of an allusion to sayings or transactions 
not recorded in the canonical Gospels, are so very few, 
and that of these not one is explicitly referred by 
Justin to the Memoirs, 1 it is not at all improbable 
that the source of his knowledge in these exceptional 
cases was oral tradition. Living so near the time of 
the apostles, when, as we know, some unrecorded say- 
ings of Christ and circumstances in his life were orally 
reported from one to another, this supposition is by 
no means unnatural. Yet as written narratives, be- 
sides the four of our canon, were extant, and had 
a local circulation — especially the Gospel of the He- 

1 Such a reference to the Memoirs has been supposed in Dial c. 
Tryph., c. 103 (p. 352 ed. Otto), but erroneously. Nor is there a ref- 
erence to the Memoirs in Dial c. Tryph., c. 88 (p. 306 ed. of Otto), 
where eypayjsav ol dnocrToXot avrov refers grammatically only to the last 
part of the sentence. There is no citation "by Justin from the 
Memoirs, which is not found in the canonical Gospels. 



THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : JUSTIN. 49 

brews among the Ebionite Christians — Justin may- 
have been acquainted with one or more of these, 
and thence derived the exceptional passages which 
we are considering. That either of these, however, 
was generally read in the churches (as were the 
Memoirs of which Justin speaks) is extremely im- 
probable ; for how could any Gospel which had been 
thus made familiar and dear to a multitude of Chris- 
tians by being read in their assemblies, be suddenly 
thrown out and discarded without an audible word of 
opposition ? How can such an hypothesis stand in 
view of the fact that by the time Justin died Irenaeus 
had already reached his manhood ? It is clearly es- 
tablished that Justin had in view the same Gospels 
which we read in our Bibles, although, as we have 
said, he may have been acquainted with other less 
trustworthy narratives of the life of Christ. 1 If we 
suppose, as there is no necessity for doing, that he de- 
rived a few facts or sayings from such a source, it by 
no means follows that he put these writings on a level 
with the authoritative Memoirs — the ccTrojuvrjjuovav- 
juccTcc. Be it observed, that in the multitude of his 

1 That by the dTrofivrjuovev/xara Justin had in mind solely the four 
Gospels, is earnestly maintained by Semisch, and by Professor Norton 
in his very able work on the Genuineness of the Gospels. Bleek 
holds that he had these mainly, if not exclusively, in view. Ewald, 
without any just reason, thinks that because the records are said to 
emanate from the apostles and their followers, he had reference to 
many such writings, which were in his hands. Jahrb. d. Bill. Wiss., 
VI. 60. 

4 



50 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

allusions to the evangelical history, those which 
cannot be distinctly traced to the canonical Gospels 
do not exceed six in number. 

The evidence that the fourth Gospel formed one 
of Justin's authoritative Records or Memoirs cannot 
be gainsaid. In a long list of passages collected from 
Justin by Semisch and other writers, there is a 
marked resemblance in language and thought to 
places in the fourth Gospel. 1 In regard to many 
of these, to be sure, we are not absolutely obliged to 
trace them to this source. They may have been 
derived from unwritten tradition. But we are author- 
ized to find the origin of this class of expressions in 
John, when we have assured ourselves, from other 
passages which admit of no doubt, that Justin made 
use of the fourth Gospel. And from this conviction 
there is no escape. We mention here only one, but 
perhap's the most obvious and striking, of the special 
quotations which Justin has drawn from this Gospel. 
Having described with some detail the method of 
Christian baptism, Justin adds : " For indeed Christ 
also said : ' except ye be born again, ye shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And that it is 
impossible for those who are once born to enter into 
their mother's womb, is plain to all." 2 Here is a 

1 The work of Semisch to which we refer — Die DenTcwurdig- 
Tceiten des Martyr ers Justinus — is a thorough examination of the ques- 
tion: What Gospels were made use of by Justin? 

2 Apol., I. C. 61 : Kai yap 6 xpto-ros einep ' " hv fifj dvayevvrj^re, ov prj 
eio-eXS^re els ttjv fiaoikelav tcov oipavwv. "On de ko\ afivvarov els tus 



THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : JUSTIN. " 51 

passage so peculiar, so characteristic of John's Gospel, 
that we are precluded from attributing it to any other 
source. Is it credible that Justin drew this passage 
from some other gospel, which suddenly perished and 
was supplanted by that bearing the name of John ? 
Writers of the Ttibingen school have suggested that 
this, as well as other passages seeming to be from 
John, were taken by Justin from the Gospel of the 
Hebrews. Aside from the entire absence of proof in 
support of this assertion, all the information we have 
concerning the Gospel of the Hebrews warrants the 
declaration that it contained no such passages. The 
Gospel of the Hebrews bore a great resemblance 
in its contents to our Gospel of Matthew. It was the 
product of a translation and mutilation of our Greek 
Matthew. There is much to be said in favor of the 
opinion, for which Bleek argues, that the known fact 
of its resemblance to Matthew first gave rise to the 
impression that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel 
in the Hebrew tongue. 1 

firjTpas ro)i> T€Kov(ra>v tovs aira^ yevvoipevovs (fiftr/vat, (pavepov nacriv eart. 

There is no reasonable doubt that the quotation in Dial. c. Tryph., c. 
88, ovk tlfii oxpivtos, iya> (pcovrj fiowvTos, is from John i. 19, 23: ovk 
elfu eya> 6 ^piuTos .... iya> (pavf] fiooovTos iv rrj epfjpco. 

1 The occurrence of this passage relative to regeneration in the 
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Horn. xi. 26), with the same deviations 
from John that are found in Justin's quotation, was made an argument 
to prove that both writers must have taken it from some other Gospel 
— the Gospel of the Hebrews. But the additions to the passage in the 
Homilies, and the omission of the part concerning the impossibility 
of a second physical birth, — points of difference between Justin and 



52 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

The fact of Justin's acquaintance with John's 
Gospel, however, does not rest solely upon the evi- 
dence afforded by the citation of isolated passages. 



the Homilies, — are quite as marked as the points of resemblance, 
which may be an accidental coincidence. The deviations in Justin's 
citation from the original in John are easily explained. They are 
chiefly due to the confusion of the phraseology of this passage with 
that of John iii. 5 and Matt, xviii. 3, — than which nothing was more 
natural. Similar inaccuracies, and from a similar cause, in quoting 
John iii. 3, are not uncommon now. That Justin uses the compound 
verb dvayewdco, is because he had found occasion to use the same 
verb just before in the context, and because this had become the cur- 
rent term to designate regeneration. 

Baur in one place adduces John iii. 4 as an instance of the ficti- 
tious ascription to the Jews, on the part of the author of this Gospel, 
of incredible misunderstandings of the words of Jesus. If this be so, 
surely Justin must be indebted to John for the passage. Anxious to 
avoid this conclusion, and apparently forgetting what he had said 
before, Baur, in another passage of the same work affirms that this 
same expression is borrowed alike by the author of John and by 
Justin from the Gospel of the Hebrews ! See Baur's Kanonische 
Evangelien, pp. 290, 300, compared with pp. 352, 353. There were 
two or three other citations, however, in the Homilies, in which it was 
claimed that the same deviations are found as in corresponding cita- 
tions in Justin. But if this circumstance lent any plausibility to the 
pretence that these passages in Justin were drawn from some other 
document than the canonical John, this plausibility vanishes and the 
question is set at rest by the publication of Dressel's ed. of the 
Homilies. This edition gives the concluding portion, not found in 
Cotelerius, and we are thus furnished (Horn. xix. 22, comp. John ix. 
2, 3) with an undenied and undeniable quotation from John. This 
makes it evident that Horn. iii. 52 is a citation of John x. 9, 27, and 
also removes all doubt as to the source whence the quotation of 
John iii. 3 was derived. The similarity of the Homilies to Justin, in 
the few quotations referred to above, is probably accidental ; if not, it 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: JUSTIN. 53 

In his doctrine of the Logos and of the Incarnation, 
and in the terms under which the person of the 
Saviour is characterized, are indubitable marks of a 
familiarity with John. This peculiar type of thought 
and expression pervades the whole theology of Justin. 
We can hardly doubt that it was derived by him from 
an authoritative source. In one passage, Justin di- 
rectly attributes the truth of the Incarnation, " that 
Christ became man by the Virgin," to the Memoirs. 1 
Are we to believe that this whole Johannean type of 
doctrine was found in some unknown Gospel, which 
in Justin's day was read in the Christian congregations 
in city and country, but was suddenly displaced by 
another Gospel having just the same doctrinal peculi- 
arity; a 'change which, if it took place at all, must 
have occurred in the later years of Justin's life, and in 
the youth of Irenaeus? And yet Irenaeus knew 
nothing of it, had no suspicion that the fourth Gos- 

simply proves that Justin was in the hands of their author. This may 
easily be supposed. The date of the Homilies is in the neighbor- 
hood of 170. See on these points Meyer's Finl., s. 10. Bleek, s. 228. 
Semisch, 193 seq. 

1 Dial. c. Tryph., o. 105. The explicit reference to the Memoirs is 
grammatically connected only with the clause which we have cited 
above, and not with the entire sentence, as has been frequently sup- 
posed. Yet, it is scarcely doubtful that the whole conception of 
Christ, of which this clause was a part, was derived from the same 
source. "For I have proved," says Justin, " that he [Christ] was the 
only-begotten of the Father of all things, being properly begotten 
by Him as his Word and Power," — here follows the clause, with the 
reference to the Memoirs, which is quoted above. 



54 GENUINENESS OP THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

pel had any author but John, or that the fixed and 
sacred number four was made up by so recent an 
intruder ! 

The value of this testimony of Justin is evinced 
by the various and incongruous hypotheses which have 
been resorted to, for the purpose of undermining . it. 1 
But all now admit (what ought never to have been 
disputed) that under the name of Memoirs he refers to 
no single Gospel exclusively, but to a number of 
Gospels. It is admitted, also, that among them were 
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But the 
Memoirs were by " Apostles and their Companions." 
Besides Matthew, Justin's collection must necessarily 
have embraced one other apostle. Whose work was 
this but that of John? No other work which 
pretended to emanate from an apostle can supply the 
vacant place. No evidence which is worth considera- 
tion points to any other; no other ever had the 
currency which Justin ascribes to the documents to 

1 We have not thought it necessary to refute Hilgenfeld's hypo- 
thesis, that one of Justin's principal authorities was the apocryphal 
Gospel of Peter. (See Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien Justin's, 1850, s. 
259 seq.) This Gospel Hilgenfeld assumes to have been the basis of 
the canonical Gospel of Mark, — a groundless assumption, resting 
upon a misinterpretation of Papias, who refers to the canonical 
Gospel itself, and not to any unknown work out of which this 
Gospel is thought to have grown. The idea that the Gospel of 
Peter, a book so insignificant and so little known in the early church, 
was one of the authoritative documents of Justin ! The proofs 
which Hilgenfeld adduces, are, in our judgment, far-fetched and des- 
titute of force. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : JUSTIN. 55 

which he refers. When we find in Justin, therefore, 
the same designation of the authors of his Gospels, — 
"Apostles and their Companions," — which Irenaeus 
and Tertullian use to denote the four canonical 
writers, how can we resist the conviction that these 
are the writers to whom he, as well as thev, refer ? 
" The manner," says Norton, " in which Justin speaks 
of the character and authority of the books to which 
he appeals, proves these books to have been the 
Gospels. They carried with them the authority of the 
Apostles. They were those writings from which he 
and other Christians derived their knowledge of the 
history and doctrines of Christ. They were relied 
upon by him as primary and decisive evidence in his 
explanations of the character of Christianity. They 
were regarded as sacred books. They were read in 
the assemblies of Christians on the Lord's Day, in 
connection with the Prophets of the Old Testament. 
Let us now consider the manner in which the Gos- 
pels were regarded by the contemporaries of Justin. 
Irenaeus was in the vigor of life before Justin's death; 
and the same was true of many thousands of Chris- 
tians living when Irenaeus wrote. But he tells us 
that the four Gospels are the four pillars of the 
church, the foundation of Christian faith, written by 
those who had first orally preached the gospel, by 
two apostles and two companions of apostles. It 
is incredible that Irenaeus and Justin should have 
spoken of different books." When "we find Ire- 



56 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

naeus, the contemporary of Justin, ascribing the same 
character, the same authority, and the same authors, 
as are ascribed by Justin, to the Memoirs quoted by 
him, which were called Gospels, there can be no rea- 
sonable doubt that the Memoirs of Justin were the 
Gospels of Irenaeus." * 

But we have testimonies to the genuineness of 
the fourth Gospel prior even to Justin. The first of 
these we have to mention is Papias, who flourished in 
the first quarter of the second century. He wrote a 
work in five books entitled " An Explication of the 
Oracles of the Lord," in the composition of which he 
depended mainly on unwritten traditions which he 
gathered up in conversation with those who had heard 
the apostles. Eusebius states that " he made use of 
testimonies from the Eirst Epistle of John." 2 That 
this Epistle and the fourth Gospel are from the same 
author, has been, it is true, called in question by 
the Tubingen critics. But if internal evidence has 
any weight, is ever entitled to any regard, we must 
conclude, in agreement with the established, universal 
opinion, that both these writings have a common 
author. In style, in language, in spirit, in tone, 
they have the closest resemblance ; and to ascribe this 
resemblance in either case to the imitation of a coun- 
terfeiter, is to give him credit for an unequalled 



1 Gen. of the Gospels, Vol. I. pp. 237-239. 
3 Euseb., Lib. III. c. 39. 






EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 57 

refinement of cunning. 1 So that the testimony of 
Papias to the first Epistle is likewise evidence of the 
genuineness of the Gospel. The attempt is made, 
indeed, to invalidate this testimony by the suggestion 
that possibly Eusebius gives, in this instance, simply 
an inference of his own from passages in Papias 
which that author himself may not have referred 
to John. But this suggestion rests upon no proof, 
and has not the force of a probability, in view of the 
explicit assertion of Eusebius. The Tubingen critics 
make much of the circumstance that Papias is not 
said by Eusebius to have made use of John's Gospel ; 
but until we know what particular end Papias had in 
view in his allusions to New Testament books, this 
silence is of no weight. That he did acknowledge 
the Eirst Epistle of John, demonstrates that he also 
knew and acknowledged the Gospel. Turning to the 
Apostolic Eathers, we find not a few expressions, 
especially in the Ignatian Epistles, which remind us 
of passages peculiar to John ; but in general we 
cannot be certain that these expressions were not 
drawn from oral tradition. Yet in some cases they 
are much more naturally attributed to the fourth 
Gospel, and in one instance this can hardly be 
avoided. Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, 
says : "for every one who does not confess that Jesus 

1 On the certainty that the first Epistle was written hy the 
author of the Gospel, see De Wette's Einl. in das JV. Testament, 
§ 177 a. 



58 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist." 1 The 
resemblance of language to 1 John iv. 3 is striking ; 
but a thought which in that form is so peculiar to 
this canonical epistle, being, as it were, the core of 
the type of doctrine which it presents, can hardly, 
when found in Polycarp, an immediate pupil of John, 
be referred to any other author. 2 Another and still 
earlier testimony is attached to the fourth Gospel 
itself (John xxi. 24). This passage purports to come 
from another hand than that of the author, of whom 
it says : " we know that his testimony is true." It 
has been attached to the Gospel, as far as we are able 
to determine, from the time when it was first put 
in circulation. If it be not part and parcel of a 
flagrant imposition, it proves the work to have been 
written by the beloved disciple. 

An important part of the external evidence for 
the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, is the tacit 
or express acknowledgment of the fact by the various 
heretical parties of the second century. Significant, 
in connection with this point, is the circumstance that 
the Artemonites, the party of Unitarians who came 
forward in Rome near the end of the second century, 
did not think of disputing the apostolical origin 
of that Gospel to which their opponents were indebted 
for their strongest weapons. Had the fourth Gospel 

1 iras yap os av p.r) opokoyfj 'irja-ovv Xpurrbv ev (rapid e\r]\v%evai 
avTixpivTos cart. Ad Phil. 7. 
8 Meyer's Einl n s. 5. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : MARCION. 59 

first been heard of within the lifetime of the old men 
then living in the Roman church, we should look for 
an attack from this Unitarian party, who did not lack 
ability, upon its authority. But no doubt of this 
kind was expressed. Prom the disputes which agi- 
tated the middle part of the century, however, the 
argument we have to present is mainly derived. If 
the fourth Gospel was acknowledged to be the work 
of John by Marcion, the Valentinian Gnostics as 
well as their opponents, and at the epoch of the 
Montanistic controversy, the most skeptical must give 
up the attempt to bring down into the second or 
third quarter of the second century the date of its 
authorship. 

We begin with Marcion. Marcion was a native of 
Pontus, and came to Rome about the year 130. In 
his enthusiastic and one-sided attachment to Paul's 
doctrine, he exaggerated the contrast of law and 
gospel into an absolute repugnance and contrariety, 
rejected the Old Testament, regarding the God of 
the Old Testament as an inferior Divinity, hostile to 
the Supreme Being, and consequently was led to make 
up a canon of New Testament writings to suit 
himself. His Gospel, *as the church Fathers testify, 
was a mutilated copy of Luke, so altered as to answer 
to his peculiar tenets. The priority of our Luke 
to Marcion's Gospel is now generally allowed, even 
by the Tubingen critics who had previously taken the 
opposite ground. There is, indeed, no room for doubt 



60 GENUINENESS OF THE FOUEtTH GOSPEL. 

in reference to this fact. Not only is Marcion known 
to liave altered the Pauline Epistles to conform them 
to his opinions, but the fragments of his Gospel 
which have been preserved, are plainly the product of 
an alteration of corresponding passages in our third 
Gospel. But our present inquiry relates to John. 
Was Marcion acquainted with the fourth Gospel? 
The negative has been stoutly maintained by the 
school of Baur, in opposition, however, to decided 
proof. We learn from Tertullian that Marcion re- 
jected John's Gospel — a fact which implies its exist- 
ence and general reception ; and Tertullian explains 
his motive in this procedure. Tertullian says : " But 
Marcion having got the Epistle of Paul to the 
Galatians, who blames the apostles themselves, as not 
walking uprightly, according to the truth of the 
gospel, and also charges some false apostles with per- 
verting the gospel of Christ, sets himself to weaken the 
credit of those Gospels which are truly such, and are 
published under the name of apostles, or likewise of 
apostolical men." \ That is to say, conceiving, like the 



1 Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos 
apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem 
evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes 
evangelium Ohristi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evange- 
liorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam 
apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat. Adv. 
Ifarcion., Lib. IV. c. 3. This accounts for his not selecting John's 
Gospel instead of Luke. His zeal for Paul, which was attended with 
hostility to the other Apostles, was his prime characteristic. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: MARCION. 61 

modem school of Baur, that there was a hostility 
between Peter, James, and John on the one hand, 
and Paul on the other, and making himself a partisan 
of Paul, he rejected everything that came from 
them. Tertullian makes it clear that by "the Gos- 
pels published under the name of apostles or likewise 
of apostolical men," he intends the four of our canon. 1 
Hence the Gospels which he says were rejected 
by Marcion must be Matthew, Mark, and John. 
Again, Tertullian, speaking of the adoption by Mar- 
cion of Luke's Gospel alone, says : " Now, since it is 
known that these (Matthew, Mark, and John) have 
also (as well as Luke) been in the churches, why has 
Marcion not laid hands on these also, to be corrected 
if they were corrupt, or received if incorrupt ? " 2 
Tertullian would convict Marcion of an inconsistency 
in laying aside the other Gospels, 3 not pretending 
to purge them of fancied corruptions, and yet not 
receiving them. Once more, in regard to a certain 
opinion of Marcion, Tertullian says, addressing Mar- 
cion, that if he did not reject some and corrupt others 
of the scriptures which contradict his opinion, the 



1 Adv. Marcion., Lib .IV. c. 2. " Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis 
Ioannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus in- 
staurant," etc. 

2 Adv. Marcion., Lib. IV. c. 5. "Igitur dum constet haec quoque 
apud ecclesias fuisse, cur non haec quoque Marcion attigit aut emen- 
danda, si adulterata, aut agnoscenda, si integra ?" etc. 

8 " Quod omissis eis Lucae potius institerit." Ibid. 



62 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Gospel of John would convict him of error. 1 The 
correctness of Tertullian in these statements has been 
impeached, but he had taken pains to inform himself 
concerning the life and opinions of Marcion, and there 
is no good ground for charging him here with error. 
His accuracy is confirmed by the explanation he gives 
of the origin of Marcion's hostility to the apostles, as 
proceeding from his wrong view of the passage in 
Galatians. We must conclude, therefore, that when 
Marcion brought forward his doctrine, the fourth 
Gospel was extant, the acknowledged work of John. 

The general reception of John as an apostolic 
work preceded the Valentinian Gnosticism. Valen- 
tinus, the author of the most vast and complete of 
all the fabrics of Gnostic speculation, came to Rome 
about the year 140. That the Gospel of John was 
admitted to be genuine, and used as such, by his 
party, is well known. Irenaeus speaks of the Valen- 
tinians as making the most abundant use of John's 
Gospel : eo quod est secundum Johannem plenissime 
utentes. 2 Heracleon, one of the followers of Valen- 
tinus, wrote a commentary upon John's Gospel, from 
which Origen in his work upon John frequently 



1 " Si scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias re- 
iecisses, alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium 
Ioannis," etc. De Game Christy c. 3. For other passages to the same 
effect from Irenaeus and Tertullian, see De Wette's Einl. in d. N. T. 
§ 72 c. Anm, d. 

8 Ado. Haer. y Lib. III. c. 11. § 7. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : VALENTINE. 63 

quotes. 1 Ptolemaeus, another follower, expressly 
designates the Prologue of John as the work of the 
apostle, and puts his own forced explanation upon 
its contents. 2 The precise date of Heracleon and 
Ptolemaeus we cannot determine, but they must 
have written not far from the middle of the century. 
But did Valentinus himself know and acknowledge 
the fourth Gospel as the work of John? This we 
might infer with great probability from its accept- 
ance by Heracleon and his other followers. We 
should draw the same conclusion from the silence 
of Irenaeus as to any rejection of John's Gospel by 
Valentinus, and from his statement as to the use 
of it by the school in general. Moreover, Tertullian 
contrasts Yalentinus and Marcion in this very partic- 
ular, that whereas the latter rejected the Scriptures, 
the former built up his system upon perverse inter- 



1 The passages in Heracleon referred to by Origen are collected 
in Grabe's Spicilegium, Yol. II., and in Stieren's ed. of Irenaeus, I. 
938-971. 

2 Epist. ad Floram, c. 1, ap. Epiph. Haer., xxxiii. 3. See Grabe's 
Spicilegium, II. 70, 2d ed., or Stieren's Irenaeus, I. 924. 

The work which passes under the name of Excerpta Theodoti, or 
JDoctrina Orientalls, a compilation from the writings of Theodotus and 
other Gnostics of the second century, contains numerous extracts from 
one or more writers of the Yalentinian school, in which the Gospel 
of John is quoted and commented upon as the work of the apostle. 
See particularly cc. 6, 7. These Excerpta are commonly printed with 
the works of Clement of Alexandria ; they are also found in Fabri- 
cius, Bill. Gfraeca, Vol. V., and in Bunsen's Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 
Yol. I. 



64 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

pretation. Valentinus, he says, did not adjust the 
Scriptures to his material — his doctrine — but his 
material to the Scriptures. 1 Marcion made havoc 
of the Scriptures ; Valentinus autem joepercit. And 
Tertullian says, directly, that Valentinus makes use 
of the whole instrument, i. e. canonical Gospels. 
Tertullian's phraseology has been sometimes errone- 
ously supposed to indicate doubt upon this point. 
He has been translated as follows : " for if Valentinus 
appears (videtur) to make use of the entire instrument 
(i. e. our Scriptures), he has done violence to the 
truth with a not less artful spirit than Marcion." 2 
Were this the exact sense of the passage, the videtur 
might naturally be considered the concession- of an 
adversary, Tertullian not being able to charge his 
opponent with the actual rejection of any of the 
Gospels, however tempted by polemical feeling to 
throw out such an imputation. But the term videri 
is frequently used in the writings of Tertullian, not 
in the sense of " seem," but " to be seen," " to be 
fully apparent ; " and such we are persuaded is its 
meaning in the present passage. 3 But aside from 

1 "Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam non ad materiam scrip- 

turas excogitavit auferens proprietates singulorum quoque 

verborum." De Praescript. Haeret., c. 38. 

2 "Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, 
non callidiore ingenio quam Marcion manus intulit veritati." De 
Praescript., c. 38. 

8 Comp. Tert. Adv. Prax,, e. 26, 29 ; Adv. Marc, iv. 2 ; Be Orat., 
c. 21 ; Apol., c. 19 ; Adv. Jud., c. 5, quoted from Is. i. 12. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : VALENTINE. 65 

this evidence, we are furnished with direct proof of 
the fact that Valentinus used and acknowledged 
the Gospel of John, through the lately -found work of 
Hippolytus. Hippolytus wrote the "Refutation of 
all Heresies " in the earlier part of the third century. 
He devotes considerable space to the systems of 
Valentinus and the Valentinians, which he traces to 
the mathematical speculations of Pythagoras and 
Plato. In the course of his discussion, referring to 
Valentinus, he writes as follows: "All the prophets 
and the law spoke from the demiurg, a foolish god, 
he says — fools, knowing nothing. On this account 
it is, he (Valentinus) says, that the Saviour says : 
' all that came before me are thieves and robbers.' " 1 
The passage is obviously taken from John x. 8. 
The pretension of the Tubingen critics that the 
author here ascribes to the master what belongs to 
his pupils, is improbable • since Hippolytus, while 
coupling Valentinus and his followers together in 
cases where their tenets agree, knows how carefully 
to distinguish the different phases of belief in the 
schools. The peculiarities of the Italian Valentin- 
ians, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, of the oriental 
Valentinians, Axionikus and Ardesianes, and the 
special opinions of other individuals of the party, 
are definitely characterized. We have in their dis- 
position of this case a specimen of the method of 

1 Hippolytus (Dimeter and Schneidewin's ed.), Lib. VI. c. 35. 
5 



66 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

reasoning adopted by Baur and his followers. Hip- 
polytus, we are told, may have attributed to Valen- 
tinus what belongs only to his pupils. Granted, 
he may have done so. The supposition is possible. 
But what is the evidence that in this instance he 
did so? We are to assume that he is right until 
he is proved to be wrong. We are not arguing 
about what is possible or impossible; ,but we are 
discussing points where probable reasoning alone is 
applicable. So, these critics tell us it is possible 
that Polycarp quoted an anonymous sentence current 
at the time, which is also taken up into the first 
epistle bearing the name of John. It is possible 
that this or that writer drew his passage from some 
lost apocryphal work. The possibility we grant, 
for in these matters demonstration is of course pre- 
cluded. But the suggestion of a mere possibility 
on the opposite side against a presumptive, natural, 
and probable inference, cannot pass for argument. 

When we look at the interior structure of the 
system of Valentinus, we find that the characteristic 
terms employed by John are wrought into it, some 
of them being attached as names to the aeons which, 
in a long series of pairs, constitute the celestial 
hierarchy. Among these pairs are such as jLiovoyarriQ 
and dXrifrtia, Xoyog and ^cor]. The artificial and 
fantastic scheme of Valentinus, so in contrast with 
the simplicity of John, wears the character of a 
copy and caricature of the latter. That it has this 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : BASILIDES. 67 

relation to John we cannot, to be sure, demonstrate ; 
for it may be contended that both the Gnostic and 
the author of the fourth Gospel took up current 
terms and conceptions, each writer applying them 
to suit his own purpose. But the freshness and 
apparent originality of John's use of this language, 
not to speak of the other proofs in the case, are 
decidedly against this theory of Baur. When we 
bring together all the items of evidence which bear 
on the point, we feel warranted to conclude with 
confidence that not only Ptolemaeus and the other 
disciples of Valentinus, but also their master, alike 
with his opponents, acknowledge the apostolic author- 
ship of the Gospel. 1 Through Hippolytus we are 
provided with another most important witness in the 
person of Basilides, the other prominent Gnostic 
leader, who taught at Alexandria in the second quar- 
ter of the second century. Among the proof-texts 
which Hippolytus states that Basilides employed, 
are John i. 9 : " This was the true light that lighteth 
every man that cometh into the world ; " and John 
ii. 4 : " My hour is not yet come." 2 In the passage 
in Hippolytus containing these quotations ascribed 
to Basilides, and in the closest connection with them, 
stand his essential principles and characteristic ex- 
pressions ; so that the suggestion of a confounding 
of master and pupils on the part of Hippolytus has 

1 See Schneider, s. 35. 2 Hippol., Lib. VII. cc. 22, 27. 



68 GENUINENESS OE THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

not the shadow of a support. In connection with 
this piece of evidence, we may advert to the state- 
ment of Agrippa Castor, a contemporary of Basilides, 
that he wrote "twenty-four books on the Gospel." 1 
It has been rendered highly probable that this denotes 
a commentary on the four Gospels. 2 The same 
expression — "the Gospel" — it will be remembered, 
is used by Justin Martyr, as well as by the Fathers 
subsequent to him, for the Gospels collectively. 

How widely extended was the knowledge and 
use of the fourth Gospel among the heretics of the 
second century, is further illustrated by the numerous 
quotations that were made from it by the Ophites 
or Naasseni, and the Peratae, which are preserved 
by Hippolytus. 3 

We have to touch upon one other movement in 
the second century, the controversies connected with 
Montanism. The main features of Montanism were 
the Chiliasm, or expectation of the Saviour's millennial 
reign and speedy advent, and the prophecy or ecstatic 
inspiration. In the millennial doctrine, as well as 
in the belief in the continued miraculous gifts of 
the Spirit, there is a striking resemblance between 
the Montanists and the followers of Edward Irving. 
We cannot say how far Montanism professed to 
found itself on John's Gospel, because we know not 

1 Euseb., Lib. IY. c. 7. 

2 See Norton's Gen. of the Gospels, Yol f III. p 238. 

3 Hippol., Lib. Y. cc. 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 69 

precisely when in the development of the sect the 
claim to . the presence of the Paraclete, in this form, 
was set up. We allude to Montanism, therefore, to 
speak of a certain party that opposed it. Irenaeus 
speaks of some who, in their opposition to the re- 
cent effusions of the Divine Spirit upon men, do not 
accept of the Gospel of John, " in which the Lord 
promised that he would send the Paraclete, but at 
the same time reject both the Gospel and the pro- 
phetic Spirit/' 1 Shortly before, he had spoken of 
some who would fain exhibit themselves in the 
character of searchers for truth, possibly referring 
to this same class. Epiphanius describes a class of 
zealous opponents of Montanism, who were probably 
the same mentioned by Irenaeus. Epiphanius styles 
them Alogi, as opposing the Logos Gospel. They 
maintained that the Gospel of John did not agree 
with the other three Gospels, in regard to various 
points in the life of Christ, — as in the omission of 
the forty days' temptation, and in the number of 
passovers he is said to have kept. 2 Their opposition, 

1 Irenaeus, Lib. III. 11. 9. Let the reader mark that this is the 
only allusion to a rejection of the fourth Gospel, as not by John, 
which we find in any writer before the latter part of the fourth cen- 
tury. The party to which Irenaeus refers consisted probably of a 
few eccentric individuals, who attracted no attention, and none of 
whose names are preserved. Moreover, as we have remarked above, 
any slight weight which their opposition could be conceived to have, 
is neutralized by their equal opposition to the Apocalypse. 

2 For a full explication of the character of the Alogi as they are de- 
scribed by Epiphanius and Irenaeus, see Schneider, s. 38 et seq. 



70 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

however, is really an argument for the genuineness 
of John. It shows the general acknowledgment of 
this Gospel at the time when they made their opposi- 
tion, which was not long after the middle of the 
second century. It proves that their opponents, the 
Montanists, and the Church generally, received it. 
Moreover, their groundless ascription of the Gospel 
to Cerinthus is a valuable testimony from them to 
its age; for Cerinthus was a contemporary of John. 
Baur's unfounded praise of the critical spirit of this 
insignificant party, is strange, considering that they 
also rejected the Apocalypse, which he holds to be 
the genuine work of John, and that they ascribed 
both the Apocalypse and the Gospel to the same 
author. It seems probable that the Alogi were led by 
their strong hostility to the Montanistic enthusiasm to 
dislike the fourth Gospel when Montanism claimed to 
find a warrant for itself in the promise of the Spirit, 
and on this doctrinal ground, making use also of the 
apparent historical differences between the fourth Gos- 
pel and the other three, they rejected it. Precisely 
what was the nature and reason of their opposition 
to the doctrine of the Logos we know not ; but their 
feeling on this subject accords with their rationalistic 
turn of mind. The circumstances of their opposition, 
as we see, are a strong indirect argument for the an- 
tiquity and genuineness of the Gospel they rejected. 1 

1 We are also entitled to cite Celsus as a witness to the fourth 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 71 

Before we leave this topic — the use of the fourth 
Gospel by the heretics — we ask our readers to con- 
sider the full weight of the argument that is founded 
upon it. The great doctrinal battle of the Church 
in the second century was with Gnosticism. The 
struggle with this first heresy of a Gentile origin 
had its beginnings early. The germs of it are dis- 
tinctly perceived in the Apostolic Age. At the 
middle of the second century, the conflict with these 
elaborate systems of error was raging. By Justin, 
the Valentinians, the Basilideans, the Marcionites 
(followers either of Marcus or of Marcion), and 
other Gnostic sects, are denounced as warmly as by 

Gospel. The date of Celsus is about the middle of the second cen- 
tury. He professed to derive his statements concerning the evan- 
gelical history from the writings of the disciples of Christ. The 
great body of his statements are plainly founded on passages in our 
canonical Gospels, especially in Matthew. But Celsus speaks of 
Christ being called by his disciples the "Word. He speaks of the 
blood which flowed from the body of Jesus, — a circumstance pecu- 
liar to John's narrative. He also says : " To the sepulchre of Jesus 
there came two angels, as is said by some, or, as by others, one 
only." Matthew and Mark mention one only, Luke and John two. 
Again, Celsus gives the Christian narrative of the Eesurrection as 
containing the fact that Christ, "after he was dead, arose, and 
showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been 
pierced." This circumstance is recorded only in John xx. 27. It is 
indeed " possible," as Meyer suggests, that Celsus found these things 
in apocryphal gospels, but the probability is the other way. Meyer 
should not have so lightly valued the testimony afforded by Celsus. 
These passages from Origen against Celsus may be found in Lardner, 
Vol. VII. pp. 220, 221 and 239. To the testimony of the Clementine 
Homilies we have before adverted. 



72 GENUINENESS OE THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Irenaeus and his contemporaries. 1 And by both 
of the parties in this wide-spread conflict, by the 
Gnostics and the church theologians, the fourth 
Gospel is accepted as the work of John, without a 
lisp of opposition or of doubt. If the fourth Gospel 
originated as the Tubingen school pretend, it ap- 
peared in the midst of this distracted period ; it was 
cast into the midst of this tumult of controversy. 
With what incredible skill must this anonymous 
writer have proceeded, to be able to frame a system 
which should not immediately excite hostility and 
cause his false pretensions to be challenged ! How- 
can we suppose that a book, appearing for the first 
time at such an epoch, having of necessity so close a 
bearing on the great themes of controversy, and 
claiming to be the production of an apostle, would 
encounter no denial? The acknowledgment of this 
Gospel, both by the Gnostic who was obliged to 
pervert its teachings through forced interpretations, 
and by the orthodox theologian, furnishes an irresisti- 
ble argument for its genuineness. 

Thus far we have dealt, for the most part, with 
those isolated passages of the early writers wherein 
the existence and authoritative standing of John's 
Gospel are presupposed. Not all these separate 
items of evidence are of equal strength. Together 
they constitute an irrefragable argument. And yet 

1 Dial. c. Tryph,, c. 32. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : TRADITION. 73 

the main, most convincing argument for the genuine- 
ness of this Gospel, is drawn from the moral impossi- 
bility of discrediting, in such a case, the tradition 
of the early Church. Let us consider for a moment 
the character of this argument. 

We begin with observing that, on matters of 
fact in which men are interested, and to which, 
therefore, their attention is drawn, and in regard to 
which there are no causes strongly operating to blind 
the judgment, the evidence of tradition is, within 
reasonable limits of time, conclusive. An individual 
may perpetuate his testimony through the instru- 
mentality of one who long survives him. The testi- 
mony of a generation may in like manner be trans- 
mitted to, and through, the generation that comes 
after. Next to the testimony of one's own senses 
is the testimony of another person whom we know to 
be trustworthy. And where, instead of one individ- 
ual handing over his knowledge to a single successor, 
there is a multitude holding this relation to an equal 
or greater number after them, the force of this kind 
of evidence is proportion ably augmented. Moreover, 
the several generations do not pass away, like the 
successive platoons of a marching army, but the 
young and the old, the youth and octogenarian, are 
found together in every community; so that upon 
any transaction of public importance that has occurred 
during a long period in the past, witnesses are 
always at hand who can either speak from personal 



74 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

knowledge or from testimony directly given them by 
individuals with whom they were in early life familiar. 
Tew persons who have not specially attended to 
the subject, are aware how long a period is some- 
times covered by a very few links of traditional testi- 
mony. Lord Campbell, in his Lives of the Chancel- 
lors, remarks of himself, that he had seen a person 
who had seen a spectator of the execution of Charles 
L, in 1649. A single link separated Lord Campbell 
from the eyewitness of an event occurring upwards of 
two hundred years before. Suppose this interven- 
ing witness to be known by Lord Campbell to be a 
discriminating and trustworthy person, and we have 
testimony that is fully credible. We borrow two 
examples from Mr. Palfrey's excellent History of 
New England. The first relates to the preservation 
of the knowledge of the landing-place of the Pilgrims. 
Plymouth Rock, says the Historian, " is now imbedded 
in a wharf. When this was about to be built, in 
1741, Elder Thomas Eaunce, then ninety -one years 
old, came to visit the rock, and to remonstrate against 
its being exposed to injury; and he repeated what 
he had heard of it from the first planters. Elder 
Eaunce's testimony was transmitted through Mrs. 
White, who died in 1810, ninety-five years old, and 
Deacon Ephraim Spooner, who died in 1818, at the 
age of eighty-three." * In another place, Mr. Palfrey 

1 Palfrey's Hist, of K England, Vol. I. p. 171. K 3. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE : TRADITION. 75 

has occasion to observe: "When Josiah Quincy, of 
Boston, was twelve or thirteen years old, Nathanael 
Appleton was still minister of Cambridge, and a 
preacher in the Boston pulpits \ Appleton, born in 
Ipswich in 1693, had often sat, it is likely, on the 
knees of Governor Bradstreet, who was his father's 
neighbor ; and Bradstreet came from England, in 
John Winthrop's company, in 1630. Eyes that had 
seen men who had seen the founders of a cisatlantic 
England, have looked also on New England as she 
presents herself to-day." 1 Mr. Quincy died in 1864. 
Every man of seventy who can unite his memory 
with the memories of the individuals who had attained 
the same age when he was young, can go back 
through a period of more than a hundred years. He 
can state what was recollected fifty years ago con- 
cerning events that took place a half century before. 
If, in reference to a particular fact, we fix the earliest 
age of trustworthy recollection at fifteen, and sup- 
pose each of those, whose memories are thus united, 
to give their report at the age of eighty, there is 
covered a period of one hundred and thirty years. 
We can easily think of cases where, from the charac- 
ter of both the witnesses, the evidence thus derived 
would be entirely conclusive. 

But traditionary evidence had a special security 
and a special strength in the case of the early Christian 

1 Palfrey's Hist., Vol. III. p. vi. of the preface. 



76 GENUINENESS OE THE EOURTH GOSPEL. 

Church. The Church, as Mayer forcibly observes, had 
a physical and spiritual continuity of life. There was 
a close connection of its members one with another. 
"Like a stream of water, such a stream of youths, 
adults, and old men is an unbroken whole." The 
Church was a community — an association. A body of 
this kind, says Mayer, recognizes that which is new as 
new. It is protected from imposition. How would it 
be possible, he inquires, for a new Augsburg Confession 
to be palmed upon the Lutheran churches as a docu- 
ment that had long been generally accepted ? 

In estimating the force of this reasoning, we must 
take notice of the number of the early Christians. 
We must remember that at the close of the first 
century Christianity was planted in all the principal 
cities of the Roman Empire. It was in the great 
cities and centres of intercourse, as Jerusalem, Antioch, 
Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, Rome, that Christianity 
was earliest established. As early as Nero's persecu- 
tion (a. d. 64) the Christians who were condemned, 
constituted, according to Tacitus, a " great multitude." x 
In Asia Minor, in the time of Trajan, or at the close 
of the century, they had become so numerous that, 
according to Pliny, the heathen temples were almost 
deserted. A century later, making due allowance for 
the rhetorical exaggeration of Tertullian, and not 
depending on him alone, we are certain that the 
number of the Christians had vastly multiplied. In 

1 Ann., I. xv. c. 44. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 77 

every part of the Roman Empire, in all places of con- 
sideration, and even in raral districts, Christian assem- 
blies regularly met for worship. And in all these 
weekly meetings the writings of the apostles were 
publicly read, as we learn from so early a writer as 
Justin Martyr. 

Now we have to look at the Christian churches in 
the second century, and ask if it was possible for a 
history of Christ, falsely pretending to be from the 
pen of the Apostle John, to be brought forward twenty, 
thirty, or forty years after his death, be introduced into 
all the churches east and west, taking its place every- 
where in the public services of Sunday ? Was there 
no one to ask where this new Gospel came from, and 
where it had lain concealed ? Was there no one, of 
the many who had personally known John, to expose 
the gigantic imposture, or even to raise a note of sur- 
prise at the unexpected appearance of so important a 
document, of which they had never heard before? 
How was the populous church at Ephesus brought to 
accept this work on the very spot where John had lived 
and died ? 

The difficulty, nay the moral impossibility, of sup- 
posing that this Gospel first saw the light in 160 or 
140 or 120, or at any of the dates which are assigned 
by the Tubingen critics,, will be rendered apparent, if 
we candidly look at the subject. 1 We have spoken of 

1 The latest asaailant of the Genuineness of John, Shenkel, in his 
work, Das Charakterbild Jesu, places the date of the Gospel from 



78 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Irenaeus and of his testimony to the undisputed, un- 
doubting reception, by all the churches, of the fourth 
Gospel. If this Gospel first appeared as late as or later 
than 120, how does it happen that he had not learned 
the fact from the aged presbyters whom he had known 
in Asia Minor ? Irenaeus, before becoming bishop, was 
the colleague of Pothinus at Lyons, who perished as a 
martyr, having, as the letter of his church states, 
passed his ninetieth year. Here was a man whose 
active life extended back well-nigh to the very begin- 
ning of the century, who was born before John died. 
Supposing John's Gospel to have appeared as late as 
120, the earliest date admitted by any part of the 
skeptical school, Pothinus was then upwards of thirty 
years old. Did this man, who loved Christianity 
so well that he submitted to torture and death for its 
sake, never think to mention to Irenaeus an event 
of so great consequence as was this late discovery of 
a life of the Lord from the pen of his most beloved 
disciple, and of its reception by the churches ? Polyc- 
rates, bishop of Ephesus, at the time of his contro- 
versy with Victor, describes himself as being " sixty- 
five years of age in the Lord/' as having " conferred 

a. d. 110-120. This indicates progress in the right direction among the 
skeptical critics. Bat as they push back the date, they have to en- 
counter a new source of difficulty. The nearer they approach to the 
time of the Apostle, the greater the number of persons who were 
familiar with him and his circumstances, and the greater the obstacle, 
from this cause, to a successful imposture. It may here be observed 
that Shenkel contributes nothing new on the question before us. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 79 

with the brethren throughout the world, and studied 
the whole of the Sacred Scriptures ; " as being also of 
a family, seven of whose members had held the office 
of bishop or presbyter. According to his statement, 
his own life began as early at least as the year 125, 
while through his family he was directly connected 
with the contemporaries of John. How is it that 
Polycrates appears to have known nothing about this 
late appearance of the wonderful Gospel which bore 
the name of John, but was the work of a great 
unknown ? How is it that the family of Polycrates 
either knew nothing of so startling an event, or if they 
knew anything of it preserved an absolute silence? 
Clement of Alexandria had sat at the feet of venerable 
teachers in different countries, of whom he says that 
they " have lived by the blessing of God to our time, 
to lodge in our minds the seeds of the ancient and 
apostolic doctrine." Prom none of these had he 
derived any information of that event, so remarka- 
ble, if we suppose it to have occurred — the sudden 
discovery of a gospel history by the Apostle John, 
of which the Christian world had not before heard. 
Justin says that in the churches there are many men 
and women of sixty and seventy years of age, who 
have been Christians from their youth; and he is 
speaking only of the unmarried class. 1 

So at every preceding and subsequent moment in 
the first half of the second century, there were many 
1 Ajool, I. e. 15. 



80 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

t 

old persons in every larger church whose memory went 
back far into the apostolic age. Now if the statement 
of Irenaeus and his contemporaries as to the compo- 
sition of the fourth Gospel by the Apostle John 
was false, and this work in reality saw the light 
not till long after his death, when some forger 
offered it for acceptance, how is it possible that 
there should be none to investigate its origin when 
it first appeared, and none afterwards to correct the 
prevalent opinion concerning it ? 

There is no way for the skeptical critic to meet 
this positive argument, founded on the unanimous 
voice of tradition, and this negative argument ah 
silentio in refutation of his theory, unless he can prove 
that the Christians of the second century were so 
indifferent as to the origin of their scriptures that they 
received whatever might offer itself to their accept- 
ance, provided the contents were agreeable to then 
doctrines and prepossessions. If there were few or 
none who were either inquisitive or competent to judge 
of the real claims of a book that professed to be an 
authentic and apostolic history of Christ, then an 
imposture of this magnitude might be successful, 
provided a person were found shrewd and unscrupulous 
enough to undertake it. But how stands the fact? 
The greater portion of the early Christians were 
undoubtedly from the poorer class. Even these must 
have been deeply interested in obtaining authentic 
accounts of that Master for whom they were offering 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 81 

up life itself. But they had among them trained, 
inquisitive scholars — men educated in the schools 
of philosophy. Justin Martyr and the Greek Apolo- 
gists are not liable to the charge of illiteracy. It was 
a time when Christianity had to answer for itself, as 
well in treatises addressed to the public magistrate as 
before the civil tribunals. It is, moreover, a note- 
worthy fact that the writers bring to the Scriptures the 
test of historical inquiry. They do not ask what book 
is doctrinally acceptable, but what book bears the 
stamp of an apostolic approval. Clement may bring 
forward a statement from an apocryphal gospel of the 
Egyptians, but he is careful to warn the reader that it 
is not contained in the four Gospels which " have been 
handed down to lis." Irenaeus and Tertullian insist 
only upon the historical evidence that the canonical 
Scriptures are apostolic. Nothing but authentic tradi- 
tion is of any weight with them on the question. It is 
true that Schwegler, Strauss, and some other writers are 
in the habit of asserting that the Christians of the first 
ages were wholly uncritical, and were satisfied with the 
claim of any book to be apostolic, if it seemed edify- 
ing. But scholars need not be told that sweeping 
representations of this nature are not sustained by 
proof and are grossly exaggerated. Origen, that most 
learned and inquisitive scholar, was born when Irenaeus 
was still in the midst of his activity. The earlier con- 
flicts with Judaizing and Gnostic heresy which cany 

us far back of Irenaeus towards the commencement 
6 



82. GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

of the century, stimulated Christians to the exercise of 
discrimination in respect to writings which claimed an 
apostolic sanction. Appeal is made to the instance 
of the partial acceptance, at the end of the second or 
early in the third century, of the Pseudo-Clementine 
Homilies. This work, however, was accompanied with 
pretended documents in attestation of its apostolic 
authorship, and with an explanation of the reason why 
it did not sooner appear; * and was hence supposed to 
"be a genuine work which had been altered and inter- 
polated by heretics. A few facts of this nature are no 
more sufficient to convict the contemporaries of Origen, 
Irenaeus, and Justin of utter indifference or heedless- 
ness in respect to the authorship of books, than the 
acceptance of Ossian or the credence given to the 
Shaks'perian forgeries of Ireland suffice to convict the 
contemporaries of Person and Johnson of a like stu- 
pidity. Moreover, the incomparably greater import- 
ance which belonged to the histories of the life and 
teachings of Christ, in the estimation of the early 
Christians, by the side of such works as the Clementine 
Homilies and Recognitions, destroys the parallel. The 
latter might be accepted, in certain circles at least, 
with little inquiry ; that a deception should be success- 
ful, and universally successful, in the case of the former, 
is inconceivable. All the knowledge we have relative 
to the formation of the New Testament canon goes to 
disprove the imputation of carelessness or incompetency 
1 See Gieseler's K. £., B. 1. 285. K 21. 



EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 83 

brought against the Christians of the second century. 
There is proof that the four Gospels of our canon were 
distinguished, as having preeminent authority, from 
all other evangelical histories in the early part of the 
second century. All other narratives of the life of 
Christ, including those of the many writers of whom 
Luke speaks in the introduction to his Gospel, as well 
as those of subsequent authors, were discarded, and, 
if used at all, were explicitly treated as not endued 
with authority. Pour, and only the four, in the time 
of Irenaeus and Tertullian, were regarded as apostolic 
and canonical. Lechler 1 mentions an example from 
Eusebius illustrating the feeling of church teachers at 
that time. Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch 
about 190, found in circulation at Rhosse (Orossus), a 
town of Cilicia, an apocryphal gospel called the Gospel 
of Peter. He says in regard to it : " We, brethren, 
receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ himself. 
But those writings which falsely go under their name, 
as we are well acquainted with them, we reject, and 
know also that toe have not received such handed dozen 
to us." 2 This is one expression ; but it falls in with 
the whole current of the evidence in relation to the 
temper of Irenaeus and his contemporaries. 

Having thus surveyed the external proofs of the 
genuineness of John, we pass to consider 

1 Studien u. Krit., 1856. 4. s. 871. 

2 Euseb., Lib. YI. c. 12. 



84 genuineness oe the fourth gospel. 

The Internal Evidence. 

1 . The fourth Gospel claims to be the work of the 
Apostle John ; and the manner of this claim is a 
testimony to its truth. The author explicitly declares 
himself an eyewitness of the transactions recorded 
by him (i. 14, compared with 1 John i. 1-3, iv. 14 ; 
John xix. 35 ; compare also xxi. 24.) In the course 
of his narrative, one of the disciples, instead of being 
referred to by name, is characterized as that " disciple 
whom Jesus loved " (xiii. 23 ; xix. 26 ; xx. 2 seq. ; xxi. 
7). In the appendix to the Gospel (xxi. 24 ; compare 
ver. 20) this disciple is declared to be its author. And 
we cannot well explain this circumlocution, except on 
the supposition that the author resorts to it in order to 
avoid the mention of his own name. Now, who of the 
disciples most intimate with Jesus is referred to under 
this description? Not Peter; for Peter is not only 
repeatedly spoken of by his own name, but is expressly 
distinguished from the disciple in question (xiii. 24 ; 
xx. 2 seq. ; xxi. 7 ; 20 seq.). Not James ; for besides 
the proof derived from the universal supposition of the 
ancient Church, that James was not the person denoted, 
we know that he was put to death early in the apostolic 
age (Acts xii. 2), while we may infer from John xxi. 
23, which is otherwise confirmed, that the disciple in 
question must have reached an advanced age. If it be 
granted that the author, whoever he may have been, 
was one of the original disciples, James is excluded, 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 85 

because the Gospel was evidently written later than 
his deaths, and out of Palestine. But if the disciple 
whom Jesus loved is not Peter or James, who can it 
be but John ? That the author would represent him- 
self to be John, is also strongly suggested by his 
omitting to attach to the name of John (the Baptist) 
the usual appellation 6 /3a7VTi6Tr)g, especially when we 
observe that he is elsewhere careful, as in the case of 
Peter and of Judas, to designate precisely the person 
meant. Supposing the writer to be himself John the 
Evangelist, and moreover to have stood, as a disciple, 
in an intimate relation with the Baptist, we have a 
double reason for his omitting in the case of the latter 
this usual title. The connection of the beloved dis- 
ciple with Peter (xx. 2 seq. ; xxi. 7 ; and also xviii. 1 5 
seq., where the alloc, fxadr\TT](; is none other than the 
beloved disciple) is another argument tending to show 
that John is meant ; since we find afterwards, in the 
Acts, that John and Peter are closely associated. 1 

Indeed, it is held by Bam that the design is to 
lead the reader to the inference that John is the 
author. Now, if we suppose that this inference is 
the simple fact, we have in the modest suppression 
of his name by John the manifestation of a certain 
delicacy of feeling, which is consonant with the spirit 
of the work. It would be connected with its real 
author by those to whom he gave it, without any 

1 See also Luke xxii. 8. 



86 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

proclamation on his part of his relation to it; as in 
truth it was ascribed to John from the outset. On 
the contrary, supposing the Gospel not to be genuine, 
we are obliged to attribute to the author a refine- 
ment in fraud, an outlay of skill in deception, wholly 
inconsistent with the simplicity and pure tone of this 
Gospel, and not likely to exist in a literary forger. 
Judging from other known specimens of apocryphal 
literature, and from the intrinsic probabilities in the 
case, we should expect of such a fraudulent writer, 
that he would boldly and openly assume the name 
and apostolic authority of John, instead of leaving 
the authorship to be ascertained in the manner we 
have indicated, by a careful inspection and combina- 
tion of passages. The indirect, modest way, then, 
in which the author discovers himself, carries with it 
the unmistakable character of truth. 

2. The truth of this claim of the fourth Gospel 
to have John for its author, is confirmed by the 
graphic character of the narrative, the many touches 
characteristic of an eyewitness, and by other indica- 
tions of an immediate knowledge, on the part of the 
writer, of the things he relates. 

In respect to these points, which mark the narra- 
tive as the product of an eyewitness and of one 
directly cognizant of the facts, none of the other 
Gospels can be compared with the fourth. We 
have not in mind here the general plan and outline 
of the history, which will be considered under another 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 87 

head, but rather the style in which the various inci- 
dents are presented. Of this pervading peculiarity 
of the fourth Gospel our readers will be reminded 
by a few examples. As one instance, we may refer 
to John i. 35 seq., where an account is given of 
the calling of the disciples : " again the next clay 
after " — the clay is thus definitely given — " John stood 
and two of his disciples ; and looking upon Jesus as 
he walked," — here we have the position of both 
John and Jesus, — " he saith, ' Behold the Lamb 
of God! ' And the two disciples heard him speak, 
and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned and saw 
them following, and saith," etc. In reply to their 
question, " ' Where dwellest thou ? ' He saith unto 
them, ' Come and see/ They came and saw where 
he dwelt, and abode with him that day, for it teas 
about the tenth hour!' Supposing the writer to 
have been one of these two disciples, speaking of 
an event that would be indelibly stamped upon 
his memory, this minuteness of description would 
be natural. If we have not an eyewitness, we 
have a subtle and painstaking deceiver. For another 
example of vivid recollection we may refer to John 
xiii. 21 seq., in the description of the last supper. 
We are told that Jesus was troubled in spirit, " and 
said, ' Verily, verily I say unto you that one of you 
shall betray me/ Then the disciples looked one on 
another, doubting of whom he spake." There is 
first an interval of silence, and looks of inquiry and 



88 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

fear cast from one to another ; but who would 
venture to ask the question, which of their number 
was to be faithless? "Now there was leaning on 
Jesus' bosom one of the disciples whom Jesus loved. 
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him " — he signified 
his wish by a motion of the hand — "that he should 
ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then 
lying on Jesus' breast, saith unto him, 'Lord, who 
is it ? ' : Jesus replies that he will point out the 
individual by handing him the sop. This silent act, 
understood by John, was followed by the remark of 
Jesus to Judas : " That thou doest, do quickly. Now 
no man at the table knew for what intent he spake 
this unto him." Some of them, we are told, thought 
that Judas was directed to buy those things that 
they "had need of against the feast, or to give some- 
thing to the poor." Who can avoid feeling that the 
writer is here presenting a scene that was pictured 
on his memory ? How unnatural, as well as painful, 
is the supposition of a carefully contrived fiction ! 
Another instance of particular recollection is found 
in John xviii. 15 seq., where, in connection with the 
account of the bringing of Christ before Caiaphas, 
Vie read : " And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so 
did another disciple; that disciple was known unto the 
high priest, and went in with the Jews into the 
palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the 
door ivithout" Peter had no such means of admis- 
sion. "Then went out that other disciple which 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 89 

was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her 
that kept the door, and brought in Peter." There 
the inquiry of this door-keeper drew from Peter his 
first denial of a connection with Christ ; and we read 
further : " The servants and officers stood there, who 
had made a fire of coals ; for it was cold: and they 
warmed themselves, and Peter stood with them and 
warmed himself." The circumstance of there being 
a fire is mentioned by Luke, but in the manner of 
stating it in John, as well as in the preceding circum- 
stances that are peculiar to him, we find the clearest 
signs of a personal recollection. The record of the 
inward conflict and vacillation of Pilate as displayed 
in his conduct (ch. xix.), is characterized by the same 
features, which show it to be a vivid recollection of 
circumstances witnessed by the writer. So there 
is much in the narrative of the crucifixion having 
the same peculiarity. Thus we read (vs. 26, 27) : 
" When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the 
disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto 
his mother, 'Woman, behold thy son.' Then saith 
he to the disciple, ' Behold thy mother.' And from 
that hour that disciple took her to his own home." 
And again we read (vs. 34, 35) : " One of the soldiers 
with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came 
thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare 
record, wad his record is true; and he knoweth that 
he saith true, that ye might believe." Is this too 
a fiction, which the author sought to commend to 



90 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

credence by a solemn asseveration, or is it a simple, 
faithful reminiscence ? 

What a life-like description, and how true to the 
conception elsewhere gained of the respective charac- 
ters, is the account of the running of Peter and John 
to the empty sepulchre ! They " ran both together ; " 
but the other disciple, outrunning Peter and arriving 
first at the sepulchre, pauses, and, stooping down to 
look in, sees " the linen clothes lying ; " yet struck, 
perhaps, with a feeling of awe, enters not. "Then 
cometh Simon Peter following him ■ " but not sharing 
in the hesitation of his companion, with characteristic 
impetuosity, at once goes in, "and seet 1 ; the linen 
clothes lie, and the napkin that was alo'/t his head 
not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together 
in a place by itself. Then," encouraged by the 
example of his more forward associate, "went in 
also that other disciple, which came first to the 
sepulchre, and he saw and believed" (xx. 3-9). 
The same freshness and naturalness which belong 
to the record of outward events are found in the 
portrayal of mental experiences. We mention, as 
an example, the notice of the refusal of Thomas to 
believe without seeing, and of the reaction of his 
mind on being shown the print of the nails (John 
xx. 24-30) ; and the refusal of Peter to have his 
feet washed by the Master, followed by the request : 
"Not my feet only, but also my hands and my 
head" (John xiii. 9). The ninth chapter, which 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 91 

describes the healing of a man who had been blind 
from his birth, and the eleventh chapter, containing 
the narrative of the raising of Lazarus, in their 
naturalness, vividness, and fulness of detail, cannot 
fail to impress the candid reader with the conviction 
that the writer was personally cognizant of the cir- 
cumstances he relates. In how simple, unartificial 
a strain does the narrative, in each case, proceed ! 
And in how life-like a way are the circumstances 
linked together! Observe, in the first narrative, 
the exclamation of the neighbors on seeing the man's 
sight restored : " Is not this he that sat and begged? " 
the different voices : " some said, ' this is he ; ' others 
said, ' it is like him ; ' but he said, ' I am he ; ' 
the evident perplexity of the Pharisees ; the parents' 
way of prudently evading a direct answer to their 
interrogatories by referring them to the man himself: 
" he is of age, ask him ; " the naif energy with 
which he confronted the Pharisees' queries. In 
reading this passage of the fourth Gospel, it is difficult 
to resist the impression that the writer is stating, 
in a perfectly artless manner, circumstances that 
fell within his own immediate knowledge. Not less 
strongly is this impression made of the writer's 
immediate knowledge, as well as fidelity, in reading 
the eleventh chapter. • Notice, for example, this 
passage in the conversation of Jesus with his disciples 
before he started for Bethany • " after that he saith 
unto them, ' Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ; but I go 



92 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

that I may awake him out of sleep.' Then said his 
disciples, ' Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.' 
Howbeit Jesus spake of his death ; but they thought 
that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then 
said Jesus unto them plainly, ' Lazarus is dead.' ' 
This conversation was surely remembered. What 
motive would lead one to invent such a conversa- 
tion? Observe, also, the graphic minuteness of 
the following statements (vs. 28 seq.) : Martha, who 
had gone out to meet Jesus, when she had spoken 
with him, " went her way and called Mary Iter sister 
secretly, saying, 'the Master is come and calleth 
for thee.' As soon as she heard that, she arose 
quickly and came unto him. Now Jesus was not 
yet come into the town, but was in that place where 
Martha met him. The Jews then which were with 
her in the house, when they saw Mary that she 
rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, 
* she goeth unto the grave to weep there.' ' We 
must suppose here either an accurate knowledge 
on the part of the writer, or an elaborate and 
gratuitous skill in contriving falsehood. Who can 
follow this narrative through, and note the expres- 
sions of deep-felt human feeling, — including the 
reference, in a single word, to the tears of Jesus, — 
and not be struck with the obvious truthfulness of 
the writer? Or are there no marks by which sincerity 
and truth can be distinguished from fraud ? * 

1 Among the illustrations of the present topic referred to by 



INTERNAL. EVIDENCE. 93 

There are many passages which, show incon- 
testibly that the author of the fourth Gospel wrote 
from an interest in the history as such. 1 There 
are numerous uncontrived and unmistakable signs 
that he is writing from recollection, and not from 
invention. Among the examples of this peculiarity 
are the allusions to Nicodemus in three places, which 
are widely apart from each other (John iii. 2 ; vii. 50 ; 
xix. 39), and which imply an increasing faith in his 
mind. The particular mention of the time of the 
occurrence of different events, as on this or that day, 
is not important to the narrative, and simply indicates 
that the writer brings out facts as they lie in memory : 
see John ii. 13 ; iv. 6, 40, 43 ; v. i. ; vi. 4, 22 ; vii. 2, 
14; xii. 1, 12 ; xviii. 27 seq. ; xix. 14. The name of 
the servant whose ear was cut off by Peter is given : 
John xviii. 10. Localities are designated, where no 
other than a historical interest can prompt the 
writer to do so. For example, it is said (c. iii. 23) 
that John was baptizing " in Aenon near to Salim : " 
the Evangelist describes a pool at Jerusalem (John v. 

De Wette (Einl. in das JSF. T. § 105. a), and which we have not espe- 
cially noticed, are John v. 10 seq. (the circumstances that followed 
the cure wrought at the pool of Bethesda ; the questions put to the 
man who had been healed, by the Jews ; his not knowing who it 
was that had healed him ; his subsequent meeting with Jesus in the 
temple) ; vii. 1 seq. (the secret journey of Christ to the feast of 
Tabernacles, after the conversation wdth his unbelieving relatives) ; 
xii. The whole of chap. iv. (the interview of Christ with the woman 
of Samaria), is a striking example of vivid, detailed narration. 
1 See Bruckner's De Wette, Einl. y s. xv. 



94 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

2), as being by the sheep-gate — gate and not market 
should have been supplied by the English translators 
— and " called in the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, 
having five porches : " in c. viii. 1, we read that 
"Jesus went unto the mount of Olives, and early 
in the morning he came again into the temple ; " so 
that the fact of his going at night to the mount of 
Olives is simply recorded, with no mention of any- 
thing that he did, or that occurred there — a striking 
instance of historical recollection, since no signifi- 
cance attached to the bare fact of his going to the 
mount : Philip is designated (c. xii. 21) as " of Beth- 
saida of Galilee," although this has no apparent 
connection with the incident there recorded of him : 
it is narrated that Pilate sat down in his judgment- 
seat " that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, 
Gabbatha;"" a description of no moment in itself, 
but involved in the writer's recollection of the spot. 

A similar mark of historical faithfulness is con- 
tained in the incidental allusions to features of the 
gospel history which yet the Evangelist does not 
record, but which were preserved either by the 
Synoptics or in oral tradition. These things, it is 
assumed, are known to his readers. We have in 
John hi. 24, in the allusion to John's being cast 
into prison, a signal instance of this sort. Jesus is 
spoken of as from Nazareth (John i. 45, 46), although 
no explicit statement about his residence there had 
been given. He is designated by the people of 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 95 

Nazareth as " the son of Joseph, whose father and 
mother " were known to them (John vi. 42 ; comp. 
i. 45). For the first time, in c. vi. 67, " the twelve " 
are incidentally mentioned. Didymus, the Greek 
name of Thomas, is associated with the Hebrew 
designation of this apostle in John ii. 16, xx. 24, 
xxi. 2. In c. xi. 2, the Evangelist explains paren- 
thetically that Mary, the sister of Martha, was 
the same Mary which anointed the Lord with oint- 
ment, and wiped his feet with her hair. This inci- 
dent, which is given in Matthew xxvi. 13, Mark xiv. 
19, is assumed by the Evangelist to be well known, 
although he had not himself recorded it, and it 
appears in his narrative at a later point (c. xii. 3). 

We have no need' to pursue the topic further. 
We find everywhere in this Gospel the air and 
manner of an eyewitness and participant in the scenes 
recorded. 

3. The general structure and contents of the 
fourth Gospel, considered as a biography of Christ, 
are a convincing argument for its historical truth and 
genuineness. 

We come now to the decisive point in the conflict 
between the advocates and the opponents of the 
genuineness of this Gospel. It is contended by the 
latter that the representation which is found in the 
fourth Gospel, both of the course of events in the life 
of Christ and of the character of his teachings, is not 
only "divergent from that of the other Gospels, 



96 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

but absolutely incompatible with it ;" and that since 
these Gospels in this respect are right, the fourth 
cannot be the work of an apostle. 

The difference between the fourth Gospel and the 
other three, in the particulars referred to, is in 
truth very palpable and very important. The impres- 
sion made by the first three, or synoptical Gospels, 
regarded by themselves, is that Jesus, after his bap- 
tism and temptation, repaired to Galilee, and remained 
there until shortly before his death, when he went up 
to Jerusalem to the passover. They record his teach- 
ings and miracles in Galilee and on this journey to 
Jerusalem, but say nothing of any intermediate visits 
to that city, and nothing of any prior labors there. 
Prom the synoptical Gospels alone, the impression 
would be gathered that the period of his ministry 
was only a year. On the other hand, John distinctly 
mentions not less than two journeys of Jesus from 
Galilee to Jerusalem previous to the last (ii. 13; v. 1), 
and seems to justify the conclusion that in each of 
these visits he remained a considerable time either in 
the city or in its neighborhood. The duration of his 
ministry, according to the fourth Gospel, cannot 
be less than two years and a half, and may possibly 
exceed three years. Not less remarkable is the differ- 
ence in the style of the Saviour's teaching in 
this Gospel, compared with the representations found 
in the other three. In the synoptical Gospels, Christ 
utters either brief, sententious apothegms, or parables ; 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 97 

while in the fourth Gospel we have extended dialogues 
and long discourses in quite a different vein. Other 
minor points of difference might be mentioned, but 
these which we have named are of chief importance. 

Before we proceed to consider in detail the bear- 
ing of these peculiarities of John upon the main 
question before us, we offer one preliminary remark. 
The more serious the difference between the contents 
of the synoptical Gospels and of John, the greater is 
the difficulty to be met by the opponents of the genu- 
ineness of the latter. For how could a Gospel which 
so runs athwart the accepted views of the life and 
teaching of Christ, be brought forward and gain cre- 
dence unless it were known to have the sanction 
of an apostle? The later the date assigned to 
the Gospel, the greater is the difficulty. What motive 
for a forger, fabricating his work long after the 
apostolic age, to depart from the traditional and certi- 
fied conception of Christ's life and teaching? And 
supposing him to have a motive to do this, how could 
he succeed ? These are questions to which the oppo- 
nents of the genuineness of the Gospel find it impossi- 
ble to give any satisfactory answer. Even if they 
were to show that the contrast between John and the 
synoptical histories almost amounts to an incompat- 
ibility, they only increase thereby the difficulty of 
solving the problem we have suggested. What in- 
ducement had a writer of the second century to 
deviate, without necessity, and to so extraordinary 



98 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

an extent, from the long prevalent and authorized view 
of the Saviour's life ? And how was the Church per- 
suaded to accept this new version of his career? 
Such is the hard problem presented to the skeptical 
critic. On the contrary, if it can be made to appear 
on a careful investigation, that, in these very particu- 
lars which are made the ground of objection, the 
fourth Gospel unquestionably presents historical truth ; 
that incidentally it supplements the other three just 
where they need explanation ; and especially that this 
Gospel alone presents a consecutive and connected 
view of the life of Christ, we have gone far toward 
establishing its apostolic authorship. We have not 
only obviated the principal objection ; we have also 
furnished a positive and convincing argument on 
the other side. Its historical peculiarities, so far from 
being a fatal objection against, will be seen to be 
a conclusive argument for, its genuineness. Only an 
apostle could have thrown this flood of light upon the 
course of events in the life of Christ. Only an 
apostle could have brought to the support of his 
narrative an authority sufficient to obtain for it cre- 
dence. We shall be obliged to notice with brevity 
the various considerations connected with the present 
topic. 

1. The journeys of Christ to Jerusalem and 
his ministry there. For reasons which we cannot 
with certainty determine, the synoptical Gospels con- 
fine themselves to the Galilean ministry. The ques- 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 99 

tion is : Have we ground for concluding, independently 
of John, that Jesus had repeatedly visited that city 
and labored there ? The synoptical Gospels say noth- 
ing inconsistent with his having done so j they are 
simply silent upon the subject. It would certainly be 
more natural to suppose that Jesus who claimed to be 
the Messiah, even if his ministry had continued but a 
year, would during this time have gone up to Jerusa- 
lem, both as an act of compliance with the law and as 
a means of gaining access to such a multitude as the 
festivals brought together. It is not easy to account 
for the fanatical hatred of the Pharisees in Jeru- 
salem towards him, if we suppose that he had never 
crossed their path, save in casual encounters with 
them away from Jerusalem, in Galilee. 

Various facts mentioned in the synoptical Gospels 
seem to presuppose such previous labors on his part 
in the capital. Thus Joseph of Arimathea, a member 
of the Sanhedrim, is said, in the synoptical Gospels, 
to be a disciple of Jesus (Matt, xxvii. 57 seq. ; Luke 
xxiii. 50 seq. • Mark xv. 42 seq.) ; but Joseph was a 
resident of Jerusalem, having, as we are told, a 
tomb there. There, it is probable, he became ac- 
quainted with Christ. Again, we learn from Luke 
(x. 38 seq.) that Jesus stood in such intimate 
relations with the family of Martha and Mary, as 
imply a previous stay in that neighborhood prior 
to this last visit. But we are happily furnished with 
a conclusive proof of the Saviour's repeated visits 



100 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

to Jerusalem, in the lamentation he uttered over 
the city, as recorded by both Matthew and Luke 
(Luke xiii. 34 seq. ; Matt, xxiii. 37 seq.) : K Itqov6a- 
XrijLi, c fc()ov6aXr]jU .... noGaxcg i\&izXr]6£C S7Zi,6vva£ai 
roc tsxva Gov .... xa\ oix ri&eXrjGccTS, x.r.%. 

Baur would make it out that the whole Jewish 
people are apostrophized under the term "Jerusalem," 
as the centre and home of the nation. This interpre- 
tation seems improbable, when we remember that 
when the Saviour uttered these words he was gazing 
upon the city. It is demonstrated to be false by the 
context in Luke. Immediately before, in the preced- 
ing verse, the Saviour says : " for it cannot be that 
a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" 

It may be well to notice the last device of inter- 
pretation, by which Strauss struggles to avoid the 
inevitable inference to be drawn from this passage. 1 
We notice his new hypothesis more willingly, because 
it offers so fair an illustration of his general method 
of criticism. "This expression," says Strauss, "can 
Jesus least of all have used where Luke puts it, 
on his journey to Jerusalem, and before he had 
once during the period of his public activity seen that 
city. But even in Jerusalem itself, after a single stay 
there of only a few days, he cannot have pointed out 
how often he had attempted in vain to draw its 
inhabitants to himself. Here all shifts" — such as 

1 Leben Jesu far das deutsclie VolJc, s. 249. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 101 

that of Baur, noticed above — " are futile, and it must 
be confessed : if these are really the words of Christ, 
he must have labored in Jerusalem oftener and longer 
than would appear from the synoptical reports." 
Now, the reader will ask, how is this conclusion to be 
escaped? Nothing more easy. "These are not his 
words," says Strauss. It is true that Matthew gives 
them as such, in connection with the other decla- 
ration : " wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, 
and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall 
kill and crucify " etc. But this last expression, as 
quoted by (Luke xi. 49 seq.), is disconnected from 
the apostrophe to Jerusalem, which is found later, 
in c. xiii. 34, 35. And that expression concerning 
the rejection of the divine messengers, though occur- 
ring in the midst of a discourse of Christ, is intro- 
duced by Luke with the words : " therefore also said 
the wisdom of God." On these data, Strauss sets up 
the theory that the whole passage, as found in 
Matthew, is a quotation from some lost christian 
book written about the time of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, in which the personified wisdom of God 
was represented as speaking ! It is interesting to 
mark the process by which he arrives at this conclu- 
sion. Matthew is held to be right in conjoining the 
two expressions, and Luke wrong in separating them. 
But Matthew is wrong in leaving out the intro- 
ductory words : " therefore also saith the wisdom of 
God." Luke, again, is wrong in not connecting both 



102 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

expressions with this formula, and in making the 
apostrophe to Jerusalem to be the words of Christ 
himself. Why Matthew, whom Strauss elsewhere pro- 
nounces altogether the best authority, especially in 
regard to the discourses of Christ, 1 should leave 
out the formula of citation, and attribute to Jesus 
words extracted from the supposed lost book, is 
indeed a difficulty. Strauss says that it was owing to 
the singularity — seltsamJceit — of this formula ! Why 
Luke should attribute to Christ himself the words 
of lamentation over Jerusalem, when they stood con- 
nected with the passage relative to divine messengers 
in a book that did not purport to be a record of the 
toords of Christ, is another unexplained circumstance. 
It is plain that Strauss credits, or discredits, each 
evangelist, in an entirely arbitrary manner, in order 
to meet the exigencies of a theory. The apostrophe 
to Jerusalem must be regarded as the outpouring 
of Christ's own feeling and as uttered by him. Both 
evangelists explicitly declare this. And apart from 
the considerations already mentioned, the conclusion 
of the passage has no propriety unless it were spoken 
by Jesus : " for I say unto you, ye shall not see 
me henceforth, till ye say, Blessed is he that cometh 
in the name of the Lord." In the passage (Luke 
xi. 49) : "therefore also saith the wisdom of God," 
the last phrase probably denotes Jesus himself, and 
may have been attached in current speech to this cita- 

1 Leben Jesu far d. deutsche Voile, s. 115. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 103 

tion of his words. Hence Luke takes it up into his 
report. 1 

The apostrophe to Jerusalem proves, therefore, 
that Jesus had again and again preached in that city 
and labored to convert its inhabitants. The fourth 
Gospel is incidentally but convincingly sustained 
in attributing a prolonged ministry to Christ and 
repeated labors at Jerusalem, by the synoptical Gospels 
themselves. But suppose a writer in the second 
century to have set himself to the work of composing 
a fictitious gospel for the purpose of indirectly inculca- 
ting a dogmatic system of his own ; how certain that 
he would have adhered to the traditional view of 
the course of the Saviour's ministry ! By giving it a 
longer duration, and introducing visits to Jerusalem 
and labors there not mentioned by the received 
Gospels, he would only invite suspicion and expose 
himself to detection. No advantage could be con- 
ceived to follow such a wide departure from the 
prevalent conception, which would not be immeasura- 
bly outweighed by the certain disadvantages and perils 

1 This is the opinion of Neander and Meyer. Strauss is not so 
original as he claims to be, in this piece of interpretation. Baur, 
after suggesting his own explanation, of which we have spoken 
above, remarks in a note that if this interpretation is unacceptable, 
then the lament over Jerusalem may be taken as the words of some 
(unknown) prophet, which in this definite form were (fictitiously) put 
into the mouth of Christ. See Baur's Kanon. Evang., s. 127. In 
plainer language : if you cannot explain away the meaning of the 
passage, deny that Christ said it ! 



104 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

attending it. It must have been, then, from a regard 
to historical truth and from a knowledge of the facts, 
that the author of the fourth Gospel has so construct- 
ed his history. And this author, whoever he was, 
had an authority with Christians so great as to enable 
him to vary thus widely, without the imputation of 
error, from the prevalent tradition. 

The more the general plan of the fourth Gospel 
is examined, the more is it seen to rest upon the solid 
foundation of historical verity. The progress of events 
in the life of Jesus, from the beginning onward to 
the final result, is clearly understood from this Gospel. 
We see how it came to pass that though " he came to 
his own, his own received him not." The vacillation 
of the people, now turning in his favor, and now, as 
he disappointed their expectations, turning against 
him, together with the origin and growth of the im- 
placable hostility of the Jewish leaders, are made 
entirely comprehensible. 

And the fourth Gospel alone gives an adequate 
explanation of the way in which the catastrophe was 
brought on. We see how the consequences of the 
raising of Lazarus obliged the Pharisees to proceed at 
once to the most decisive measures against Jesus. It 
was this event, and the effect of it upon the minds of 
the people, that precipitated the result. In regard to 
this closing portion of Christ's life, we have in John 
the clue to the solution of what is left, in part, unsolved 
in the other Gospels. Even Renan finds that " the last 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 105 

months of the life of Jesus in particular are explained 
only by John." 1 A narrative is commended to 
credence by being thus consistent and intelligible. 
The same distinction, the same verisimilitude, belongs 
to the account of the Saviour's resurrection, a section 
of the history in which the synoptical Gospels are espe- 
cially fragmentary. In John we have a view, as clear 
and coherent as it is artless and natural, of the trans- 
actions that followed his reappearance from the tomb. 

2. In considering the credibility of the fourth 
Gospel, as this question is affected by a comparison of 
its matter with the contents of the other three, we 
have to notice the difficulty and apparent discrepancy 
upon the date of the crucifixion, and also the paschal 
controversies of the second century, in their bearing 
upon this point of chronology. 

It is well known to every student of the Gospels 
that there is difficulty in reconciling the statement of 
the first three, respecting the date of the last supper, 
and consequently respecting the date of the death of 
Christ, with the statement of John. All the evangelists 
agree as to the day of the week — that the supper was 
on Thursday evening, and the crucifixion on the next 
or Friday morning. The synoptical Gospels,, however, 
appear to place the last supper in the evening when 
the Jews ate the passover-meal ; i. e. on the evening 
of the 14th Nisan, or, according to the Jewish reckon- 

1 Kenan, Vie de Jesus, p. xxxiii. 



106 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

ing, the beginning of the 15th Nisan. The fourth 
Gospel, on the other hand, appears to place the last 
meal of Jesus with the disciples on the evening before 
the passover-supper of the Jews • i. e. on the 13th, or, 
according to the Jewish reckoning, the 14th, Nisan, 
and the crucifixion on the morning immediately before, 
instead of after, this Jewish festival. 

The Tiibingen critics regard the two representations 
as really inconsistent and irreconcilable ; and on this 
ground, as they hold that the fourth Gospel is incor- 
rect, they maintain that it could not have proceeded 
from John. If the two representations can be fairly 
harmonized with each other, of course their argument 
vanishes with the foundation on which it is built. 
Without pronouncing judgment on the various modes 
which have been proposed by Dr. Robinson and other 
harmonists for reconciling the two accounts, let us con- 
sider the effect, as regards the credibility and genu- 
ineness of the fourth Gospel, of admitting that the 
discrepancy is real and irremovable. The diversity of 
the principles of criticism which are adopted by the 
major part of the able defenders of supernatural 
Christianity and evangelical doctrine in Germany, from 
those in vogue among us, is remarkably exemplified by 
their treatment of the particular question before us. 
Not only do Neander, Bleek, Meyer, and others hardly 
less distinguished, coincide with their adversaries in 
admitting that the discrepancy is irremovable ; but 
Bleek builds upon it an earnest argument for the 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 107 

credibility and apostolic authorship of John. 1 He 
insists, with much force, upon the improbability that a 
writer in the second century, who wished to be con- 
sidered an apostle, would contradict the three Gospels 
and the accepted tradition of the Church, on such a 
point as the date of the last supper and of the cruci- 
fixion. Who but an apostle, or one thoroughly 
acquainted with the facts, would think of making him- 
self responsible for such a deviation ? Who, but an 
apostle, could hope to be believed ? In a word, how 
extremely unnatural that a forger should think of 
assigning another date to these leading facts in the 
evangelical history ! Bleek, also, endeavors to show 
that the supposition that the crucifixion took place on 
the morning before the passover-lamb was eaten, is 
corroborated by incidental statements in the synoptical 
Gospels themselves, 2 as well as by all the probabilities 
in the case ; so that the accuracy of the fourth Gospel, 
in this particular, is established, and thus a strong 
argument is furnished for its general credibility. 3 



1 It should be stated that these critics do not consider the first 
Gospel, in its present form, to emanate from the Apostle Matthew. 
See Neander's Leben Jesu, s. 10. Bleek's Ei?il n s. 88 seq. The first 
Gospel is held to stand in substantially the same relation to the 
apostles as the other two ; and the historical position of all three is 
indicated in Luke i. 1, 2 ; i. e. they record the things which were 
delivered to their writers by eyewitnesses. It is not the eyewitnesses 
themselves, but those to whom they spoke. 

2 Matt. xxvi. 5, xxvii. 59 seq. ; Mark xv. 42, 46 ; Luke xxiii. 56. 

3 Ellicott, in his Life of Christ (Am. Ed. p. 292, N. 3) considers 



108 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

The opponents of the genuineness of John attempt 
to draw a support for their cause from the paschal con- 
troversies of the second century. These arose from a 
difference in practice in regard to a certain festival 
celebrated about the time of the Jewish passover. 
There was discussion on this difference, in which the 
churches of Asia Minor were opposed by the church of 
Rome, on the occasion of Polycarp's visit to Anicetus 
of Rome about the year 160 ; then ten years later, in 
which Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and 
Melito of Sardes, took part ; and especially at the end 
of the second century, when Victor, bishop of Rome, 
proposed to break off fellowship with the Asia Minor 
bishops on account of their refusal to abandon their 
ancient custom. In these controversies, and in the 
defence of their practice, the Asia Minor bishops were 
in the habit of appealing to the authority of the Apostle 
John, who had lived in the midst of them. 

Everything turns upon ascertaining the real point 
of difference and the real character of the Asia Minor 
observance. So much is certain, that this observance, 
whatever may have been its origin or significance, 
occurred on the evening of the 14th, or, in the Jewish 
reckoning, the beginning of the 15th, Nisan. Baur 

that no other interpretation of John is admissible but that which 
places the last supper on the evening before the usual passover-meal 
of the Jews. "The statements," says Ellicott, " are so clear, that to 
attempt, with Wieseler (Chron. Synops.), Eobinson (Bib. Sacra for 
Aug. 1845), to explain them away, must be regarded as arbitrary and 
hopeless.' 1 See John xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 31. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 109 

holds that it was established as a commemoration of 
the last supper, the passover-meal of Jesus with his 
disciples ; and hence infers that John, whose authority 
supported the Asia Minor observance, could not have 
written the account of the last supper in our fourth 
Gospel. 

But Baur's argument is on a foundation of sand. 
It is clear, from the earliest discussions on the subject, 
that the difference did not consist in a diverse mode of 
observing the same festival ; but that in Asia Minor 
there was a festival which did not exist at Home. This 
commemoration was on the 14th Nisan, on whatever 
day of the week it might fall; whence the adherents 
of the Asia Minor custom were called Quarto decimani, 
while Occidental Christians observed Friday and Sun- 
day of each week as the days, respectively, of the 
Lord's death and resurrection. A day was observed 
by the Asia Minor Christians which was not observed 
at Rome. Nor is there any probability that the Asia 
Minor festival was established as a commemoration of 
the last supper. 

There are two views as to the origin of their 
festival. It was the final view of Neander, and is the 
opinion of Meyer and Schneider, that it commemorated 
the death of Christ — the sacrifice of the true paschal 
Lamb, of which the Mosaic paschal lamb was the type 
(1 Cor. v. 7 ; John xix. 36). If this be the fact, the 
festival accords with the supposed chronology of John's 
Gospel. The fragment of Apollinaris has been sup- 



110 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

posed to connect the Asia Minor festival with the last 
supper, and to defend the correctness of the day of its 
observance by an appeal to Matthew. But Schneider 
forcibly argues that Apollinaris is reporting, not his 
own view, which was that of the Quartodecimani, but 
the view of a smaller party of Judaizers, from which 
he dissents ; so that Apollinaris (as also the fragment 
of Hippolytus) is really a witness to the agreement of 
the Quartodecimani with the chronology of the fourth 
Gospel. The other hypothesis concerning the design 
of the Asia Minor festival, is that of Bleek, De Wette, 
and others, who consider this festival to have been 
originally the Jewish passover, which the Jewish con- 
verts at Ephesus and elsewhere had continued to 
observe, and with which in their minds Christian ideas 
and associations were more and more connected. In 
particular, there was naturally associated with it the 
recollection of the last supper of Jesus with the dis- 
ciples. There was no such reference originally con- 
nected with the festival, nor did this association of it 
with the last supper grow up until long after the death 
of John. This apostle did not interfere with a com- 
memoration which he found established in Ephesus 
and other places in that region. Bleek shows that the 
theory of an original reference of the Asia Minor 
festival to the last supper would imply an earlier origin 
of the yearly Christian festivals than we have any 
reason to think belonged to them. It is not inconsist- 
ent with Bleek's general view, to adopt Schneider's 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. ]11 

interpretation of Apollinaris, in which case even this 
writer affords no proof of an association by the Quarto- 
decimani of their festival with the Saviour's last sup- 
per. This hypothesis relative to the character of their 
commemoration, that it was at the outset simply the 
Jewish passover, which in Rome, and in other churches 
where the Gentiles were more predominant, was not 
kept up, appears to us to be best supported. In any 
case, the charge that a contradiction exists between the 
early Asia Minor tradition concerning John's testimony 
and the chronology of the fourth Gospel is without 
foundation. 

4. The discourses of Christ in the fourth Gospel. 
These have been used as an argument against the 
apostolic origin of this Gospel : an argument founded 
on their inherent character ; their relation, both as to 
form and matter, to the teaching of Christ recorded by 
the synoptical evangelists ; the portraiture of Christ 
which they convey ; their fitness to the circumstances 
under which they are alleged to have been spoken ; 
their uniformity, both with each other and with the 
expressions of other characters in the Gospel, as well as 
with those of the author himself. 1 

Under this head we shall chiefly follow Bleek, 
regretting, however, that we are under the necessity of 
abridging his excellent suggestions. 

That the discourses of Christ in John stand in 
contrast, in important respects, with his teaching in the 



Bleek, s. 194. 



- - 



112 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

other Gospels, is not denied. The first question is, 
whether the contrast is so great that both styles of 
teaching could not belong to the same person. Here 
Bleek pertinently refers to the case of Socrates, and to 
the opinion that is coming to prevail, that the repre- 
sentation in Plato has much more of truth than was 
formerly supposed ; an opinion held by such men as 
Schleiermacher, Brandis, and Bitter, and commended 
by the apparent necessity of supposing a more specula- 
tive element in the teaching of Socrates than Xenophon 
exhibits, if we would account for the schools of 
speculative philosophy that took their rise from him. 
He must have had another side than that which we 
discern in Xenophon's record. 1 How much easier is 
this to be supposed in the case of Him who was to act 
effectually upon every variety of mind and character ! 
How natural and inevitable that each of his disciples 
should apprehend Christ from his own point of view, 
according to the measure of his own individuality * so 
that for the understanding of Christ in his fulness, we 
have to combine these various, but not incongruous, 
representations of him. 

But, as in a former instance, we find in the synop- 
tical writers proof that the fourth Gospel, in the 

1 Whoever will examine cc. ix. and x. of the fourth Book of the 
Memorabilia, will see that these are fragmentary specimens from 
another vein than that which furnishes to Xenophon most of his 
reports. A like feeling is produced when we compare the last 
chapter of the Mem. with Plato. Socrates must have said much 
more, in this closing period, than Xenophon has recorded. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 113 

character of the discourses attributed to Christ, does 
not depart from historical truth. As to their form, we 
are told, especially in Matt. xiii. 10 seq., that the 
Saviour, at least in discoursing to the disciples, did not 
confine himself to the gnomes and parables ; that he 
spake thus to the people on account of the dulness of 
their understanding, while to the disciples it was " given 
to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." 
The statements (Matt. xiii. 34 ; Mark iv. 34) that he 
never spake to the people save in parables, are of 
course of a general character, and, fairly interpreted, 
are not inconsistent with his addressing the people at 
times in accordance with the reports of John. Occa- 
sionally in the synoptical Gospels, moreover, we meet 
with expressions of Jesus in striking consonance with 
his style in the Johannean discourses, and thus giving 
us a glimpse of another manner of teaching which the 
synoptical writers sparingly report. The most remark- 
able example is Matt. xi. 25 seq. (compare Luke xi. 21 
seq.), the ejaculation of Jesus, beginning : " I thank 
thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because 
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, 
and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, 
for so it seemed good in thy sight." How perfectly in 
harmony with the style of Jesus in the latter part of 
John ! l 

1 In John, also, examples of the aphoristic style, such as prevails 
in the synoptical reports of the teaching of Christ, are not wanting. 
See John xii. 24, 26 ; xiii. 16, 20. 



114 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

As to the contents of the fourth Gospel, it is 
freely granted that the higher nature of Christ and 
the relation of the Son to the Father are here a much 
more predominant theme. Essentially the same con- 
ception of Christ, however, is found in the first three 
Gospels. In them he is the Son of God, in a higher 
than any official sense : he is the judge of the world. 
And in several passages, we find him claiming the 
lofty attributes given him in John, and in the same 
style. Thus in Matt. xi. 27 he says: "All things 
are delivered to me of my Father; and no man 
knoioeth the Son but t/ie Father ; neither hioweth any 
man the Father save the Son, and he to whom the 
Son ivitt reveal him." This mutual knowledge, ex- 
clusive, superhuman, and perfect, on the part of the 
Son and the Father, is affirmed here in the peculiar 
manner of the fourth Gospel. In Matt. xxii. 41 seq. 
(compare Mark xii. 35 seq. ; Luke xx. 41 seq.) we 
have a plain suggestion of the fact of his pre-existence. 

The objection that the discourses of Christ in 
John have a close resemblance to the style of the 
evangelist himself and to that of his first Epistle, is 
obviated when we remember that, as a result of his 
peculiar relation to Christ, the Saviour's mode of 
expression would naturally be taken up ; that we 
are under no necessity of supposing that he aimed 
to give a verbally accurate report of the Master's 
teaching; and that some freedom as to style is un- 
avoidable in abbreviating and selecting the portions 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 115 

of his discourse for which there was a place in so 
brief a work. All this, as well as that thorough 
inward digestion and assimilation, on the part of 
the evangelist, of the Saviour's discourses, which 
were consequent on the length of time that had 
elapsed since they were heard, will account for the 
peculiarity in question, without impairing in the 
slightest degree the historical truth and substantial 
accuracy of the Johannean reports. 

The falsehood of the assertion that these dis- 
courses are fictitious and put into the mouth of Jesus 
by the writer, after the manner of ancient Greek 
and Roman historians, is evinced in particular by 
certain briefer expressions which are interspersed in 
them, and which admit of no explanation except on 
the supposition that the reports are faithful. A 
signal example is John xiv. 31, where, in the midst 
of a long discourse to the disciples, occur the words : 
" Arise, let us go hence ! " * They are not followed 
by any intimation that the company actually arose 
and left the place where they were. On the con- 
trary, the discourse goes on, in the words i "I am 
the true vine," etc. But if we suppose what follows 
to have been spoken by the way; or, which is per- 
haps more natural, if we suppose that having spoken 
the words first quoted which summoned the disciples 
to quit the place where they were, the Saviour's 

1 eyeiptoSe, ayaficv eVreOSev. 



116 GENUINENESS OE THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

interest in his theme and love for them led him to 
go on still longer, while, it may be, they all remained 
standing, then these words have a proper place and 
meaning. The circumstance would imprint itself 
on the recollection of John, and it affords an impres- 
sive proof of his fidelity in reporting his Master's 
discourses. But no reason can be given why a forger 
should have introduced this fragmentary, unexplained 
phrase. Had he chosen to interrupt the discourse 
by such a phrase, he would infallibly have added some 
other statement, such as : then they arose and went. 
This little phrase, to a candid reader, is a most 
convincing item of evidence. Bleek also dwells upon 
the character of the prophetic utterances of Christ 
in John, especially of the predictions relative to his 
own death. The fact that they are in the form of 
intimations, rather than distinct declarations, will 
better account, in the view of Bleek, for the misun- 
derstanding of them on the part of the disciples. The 
form in which they appear in John wears, in his 
opinion, the stamp of historical truth, since it is 
altogether probable that in this form they were 
actually spoken. Especially, as Bleek thinks, is the 
historical fidelity of the evangelist shown by those 
passages from Christ upon which the evangelist puts 
his own interpretation, drawn from an observation 
of the subsequent event. Such are John ii. 19: 
"destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise 
it again," where we are told that the obscure reference 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 117 

to the temple of his body was ctscerned by his disci- 
ples not till after the resurrection ; and John xii. 32 : 
" and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw 
all men unto me," to which the evangelist appends 
a similar explanation. There can be no doubt in 
these instances that the apostle has faithfully reported 
the sayings of Jesus ; and this fact must be even 
more evident to those critics who do not hesitate 
to question, in these cases, the perfect correctness of 
the disciples' interpretation. 

5. The Hellenic culture and the theological point 
of view of the author of the fourth Gospel are made 
an objection to the Johannean authorship. They 
prove, it is maintained, that the work does not belong 
to the apostolic age, was not written either by a 
Palestinian or by any other Jew, but by a Gentile 
Christian of the second century. In the notice of 
these several points we principally follow Bleek. 

(1) Was the author of the fourth Gospel a 
Jew ? It is objected that his manner of referring 
to the Jews proves him not to be of their number. 
Thus we read of the "Jews' Passover," "the Jews' 
feast of tabernacles," the "feast of the Jews," the 
" preparation of the Jews," the " ruler of the Jews " 
(ii. 6, 13 ; iii. 1 ; v. 1 ; vi. 4 ; vii. 2 ; xi. 55) ; and fre- 
quently the author, alluding to the adversaries of 
Jesus and those with whom he came in contact, 
speaks of them in general as ol ^lovSalot. This 
style is capable of explanation only on the hypothesis 



118 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

that the Gospel was written late in the apostolic 
age, when the Christian Chnrch had come to be 
fully independent of the Jewish, and by a writer who 
was himself ontside of Palestine, and addressed his 
work not only to Jews, bnt also, and still more, to 
Gentiles and Gentile Christians. And this supposi- 
tion, which removes the difficulty, is itself the chnrch 
tradition concerning the composition of John. 1 But 
independently of this tradition, there can be no doubt 
that the author was of Jewish extraction. In proof 
of this, Bleek refers to the writer's familiarity with 
the Jewish laws and customs, which is so manifest 
in his account of the events connected with the 
Saviour's death; to the pragmatical character of the 
Gospel, so far as the fulfilment of Old Testament 
predictions and promises is frequently pointed out; 
and to the fact that a portion of these citations are 
translated directly from the Hebrew, instead of being 
taken from the Septuagint, — a fact that is conclu- 
sive in favor of his Jewish, and strongly in favor of 
his Palestinian, origin. It occurs to us, also, that 
Baur, in conceding that the author professes to be 
the Apostle John, may be himself challenged to 
explain why he is so negligent in affording evidence 
of a Jewish extraction. Surely, so expert a counter- 
feiter would not have forgotten a point so essential 

1 Even Paul speaks of his "former conversation in the Jews'* 
religion; " of his profiting " in the Jews' religion" Gal. i. 13, 14. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 119 

to a successful attempt to personate tlie Apostle. The 
charge that errors are found in John inconsistent 
with the hypothesis that the author was a Palestinian 
Jew, is without foundation. That Bethany (the true 
reading for " Bethabara beyond Jordan/' in John 
i. 28) was either the name of a place in Peraea, or 
was a slip of the pen for Bethabara; that, at any 
rate, the writer did not misplace the Bethany where 
Lazarus dwelt, is demonstrated by John xi. 18, where 
this town is expressly said to be fifteen stadia from 
Jerusalem. The assertion that in the designation of 
Caiaphas as high priest for that year, aQXisQtvg rov 
ivcuvTOv extivov (xi. 51; xviii. 13,) the author 
implies a belief that the high priest was changed 
every year, is entirely unwarranted by anything in 
the text. The term " Sychar " for the old city 
Sichem, instead of being a blunder, may be an old 
pronunciation of the Jews and Samaritans of that 
time. As used by the Jews there may lurk under it 
a reference to the hated character of the Samaritans ; 
or, finally, it may be simply an error of transcription. 1 

1 See Bleek, s. 209. The supposition that it is really the name 
of a town distinct from Sichem, though near it, agrees with the 
oldest traditions, and on several accounts seems more probable. So 
Hug (Introd. Part II., sec. 59), Ewald (Die Johan. Schriften, I. 181), 
Bruckner, Baumlein, Thomson, ( The Land and the Bool, II. 206), 
and others. Oomp. Grove's art. in Smith's Bible Diet. The ex- 
planations given above (from Bleek) rest purely on conjecture ; 
this rests Gn historical and topographical arguments, confirmed by 
the existence at the present day of a place with a similar name 
('Askar) near the site of Jacob's well. Lightfoot (Ghorog. Enquiry, 



120 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

(2) The objection is made that a Galilean fisher- 
man, like John, could not be possessed of so much 
Greek culture as the fourth Gospel discovers. But 
the family of John were neither in a low station, nor 
in straitened circumstances. He was certainly trained 
by his pious mother in the knowledge of the Old 
Testament. He may have been early taught the 
Greek language, which was then so widely diffused. 
The report which the members of the Sanhedrim 
had heard, that Peter and John were unlearned and 
uncultivated men (Acts iv. 13) can only signify that 
they were not educated in the schools of the Rabbis. 
Had John not attained some mastery of the Greek 
language, it is not so likely that he would have taken 
up his residence in the midst of Asia, where only 
Greek was spoken, even by the Jews. And during 
his prolonged residence there his familiarity with the 
language would doubtless increase. 

(3) The type of doctrine in the fourth Gospel, 
and especially its Christology, have been thought to 
be an argument against its composition by John, 
the Palestinian Jew. In particular, the Logos idea 
in John, it is said, was an Alexandrian notion, 
borrowed from the Greek philosophy, and introduced 
into Christian theology at a later period. % We cannot 

prefixed to Jelm, eh. iv. sec. 5) finds " the valley of the well of 
Sokar " spoken of in the Talmud as at a great distance from Jerusa- 
lem. He also suggests, as does Hug, that the name *1D1D may 
denote a lurial-place. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 121 

enter at length into the discussion of this point. We 
simply say that, as regards the language or the form 
of the doctrine, it may have been derived from the 
book of Proverbs and from Sirach, and not improb- 
ably was derived from this source, though further 
developed, by Philo himself. Elsewhere and earlier 
in the New Testament itself, if not in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, yet undeniably in the Apocalypse, we 
meet with the Johannean terminology. But, even 
if the language pertaining to the Logos came at 
first from the Greek philosophy, it may have been 
taken up by John, as a fit designation of the pre- 
existent Christ. Properly qualified, it became a 
vehicle for conveying his conception of the Son in 
his relation to the Eather. In the use of this term, 
John enters upon no speculation. He would rather 
turn away the mind from vain speculations, from the 
unprofitable discussions about the Logos that may 
have been current, to the living, historic Revealer 
of God, the actual manifestation of the Invisible One, 
the Word made flesh, which had " dwelt among us." 
Accordingly, after the first few verses, we hear no more 
of the Logos. No allusion to the Logos is introduced 
into his report of the discourses of Jesus. As to the 
matter of the conception, we utterly deny the theory 
of the school of Baur, that the early church was 
Ebionite, regarding Christ as a mere man. We hold 
that this theory is abundantly refuted by passages 
in the synoptical Gospels and Pauline Epistles, and 



122 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

is proved to be false by a fair view of the early history 
of the Church. The theology of Philo, it deserves to 
be remarked, contains nothing more than the vaguest 
conception of the Messiah, and is throughout far more 
speculative than ethical ; affording, therefore, no 
materials for that conception of Jesus Christ which 
is found in John, and which only an intuition of the 
living person of Christ could have awakened. The 
conception of Christ in John is the product of the 
impression made by Christ himself upon the soul of 
the disciple. 

(4) We have to notice another objection emanating 
from the school of Baur, that the free and liberal 
spirit of the fourth Gospel toward the Gentiles is 
inconsistent with the position attributed to John in 
Galatians ii. 9. But this objection proceeds from 
the assumption, underlying the whole system of the 
Tubingen school, that Peter and the other Jerusalem 
apostles were radically opposed to the doctrine of 
Paul relative to the rights of the Gentiles ; that they 
were, in short, Judaizers. We hold this assumption 
to be demonstrably false, and the fabric of historical 
construction reared upon it to be a mere castle in 
the air. There is nothing improbable in the circum- 
stance of the inquiry for Jesus made by the devout 
Greeks (John xii. 20) at which Baur stumbles. Even 
in Matthew, which Baur regards as preeminently a 
Jewish- Christian Gospel, is recorded the Saviour's em- 
phatic commendation of the Centurion's faith (viii 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 123 

10 seq.) ; the distinct prediction that the kingdom 
should be taken from the Jews, and given to another 
people (xxi. 43) ; the injunction to preach the gospel 
to every creature (xxviii. 19); the prophecy that it 
should be preached to all nations (xxiv. 14) ; and the 
parables describing the universal spread of the gospel 
(ch. xxiii.). We are not to leave out of view, in 
considering the spirit of the fourth Gospel with 
reference to Gentile Christianity, the inevitable effect 
of great providential events, of which the destruction 
of Jerusalem was one, and of the long interval of time 
during which the distinct character of the Christian 
Church and the broad design of Christianity had 
become more and more plain. In this objection of 
Baur, the attempt is made to uphold one false proposi- 
tion by another that is equally false. 

There is one objection not to be separated en- 
tirely from the one last considered, but which is more 
serious and plausible than any we have named. The 
other difficulties w r hich we have noticed, though not 
unworthy of consideration, vanish, and in most cases 
even turn into arguments for the contrary side. But 
the difficulty we have now to speak of, is urged with 
especial emphasis. It is strongly maintained by 
those who impugn the genuineness of John, that the 
Apocalypse, which they hold to be his work, cannot 
come from the same author as the fourth Gospel. It 
cannot be denied that there exists a degree of dis- 
parity, both in language and thought, between the 



124 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Apocalypse and this Gospel. " The language [of the 
Apocalypse] is incomparably rougher, harder, more 
disconnected, and exhibits greater errors than is true 
of any other book in the New Testament, while the 
language of the Gospel, though not pure Greek, is in 
a grammatical view incomparably more correct." 1 
This contrast between the style of the two books was 
stated as long ago as the middle of the third century, 
by Dionysius of Alexandria. 2 So there are various 
special peculiarities of language in the Gospel which 
are missed in the Apocalypse. " A still greater and 
more essential difference is discovered when we look 
at the contents, spirit, and whole character of these 
writings." 3 Under this head Bleek refers, in partic- 
ular, to the different position of the Apocalypse with 
reference to the Jewish people, so opposite to that of 
the Gospel, where ol "lovSacot is often, without 
qualification, the designation of the opposers of 
Christ ; to the definite expectation of the second 
advent and millennium, together with the conception 
of anti-Christ as a particular individual, which is 
unlike the conception found in 1 John ii. 18 seq. ; 
iv. 3. We have to weigh the objection to the 
genuineness of the Gospel which these differences have 
suggested. 

1. The impossibility that both books should have 
the same author is far from being established. The 

1 Bleek, s. 626. 
2 Euseb., Lib. VII. c. 25. 8 Bleek, s. 625. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 125 

Apocalypse was written shortly after the death of 
Nero and shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
The interval prior to the composition of the Gospel 
was not far from twenty years, — a period giving room 
for important changes in the style and habits of 
thought of any writer ; an era, too, most eventful, as 
concerns the development of the plan of providence 
relative to the Jewish nation. That they were des- 
tined, as a body, to reject the gospel, and to be 
rejected of God, was made manifest. It must be 
confessed that the force of our remark, so far as it 
pertains to the change in style and modes of thought, 
is weakened by the fact that, when the Apocalypse 
was written, John must have been sixty years old ; a 
period of life after which important changes of this 
character are less likely to occur. But another con- 
sideration is to be taken into the account, — that the 
mood of mind and feeling out of which the Apocalypse 
was written was altogether peculiar and extraordinary, 
as was the state of things in the midst of which the 
author wrote. The same author, at such a time, 
when his soul was stirred to its depths by the terrible 
events, either present or " shortly to come to pass," 
and writing under the impulse of prophetic inspira- 
tion, would fall into quite a different style from one 
that would be natural in a calmer mood, when his 
only object was to set down recollections of Christ and 
his teaching. Moreover, there are not wanting various 
points of resemblance, both in language and matter, 



126 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

between the two works. To prove this relationship, 
we have the authority of Baur himself, from whom we 
translate the following passage: "We cannot ignore 
the fact that the evangelist put himself in thought 
in the place of the Apocalypsist, and designed to 
make use, for the ends aimed at in his Gospel, of 
the consideration enjoyed by the Apostle John, who, 
as apostle, as author of the Apocalypse, and as having 
been for so many years the principal head of their 
churches, had become the highest authority with the 
Asia Minor Christians. Nay, it is not merely the 
borrowing of the external support of so distinguished 
a name; there are not wanting, also, internal points 
of affinity between the Gospel and Apocalypse ; and 
one cannot forbear to wonder at the deep geniality, 
the fine art, with which the Evangelist, in order to 
transmute spiritually the Apocalypse into the Gospel 
[um die Apokalypse zum Evangelium zu vergeistigen], 
has taken up the elements which, from the point of 
view of the Apocalypse, led to the freer and higher 
point of view of the Gospel.' ' * Now, admitting that 
so close an inward relationship connects the Gospel 
with the Apocalypse, why not refer this to the natural 
development of the author's own mind and the pro- 
gress of his views, rather than ascribe it to a hateful 
fraud and he ? If the art of the forger was so clever 
and admirable, how can we accept Baur's further 
view, that he has palpably and obviously betrayed 

1 Baur's " Das Cliristenthurn," etc., s. 147, 2d Ed. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 127 

himself? Whatever opinion is entertained of the 
authorship of the Apocalypse, the Tubingen theory is 
convicted of a gross inconsistency. That both works* 
the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel, come from the 
Apostle, is the judgment of Gieseler; and as far as 
authority is concerned, the confident assertions made 
on the other side are more than balanced by the calm 
opinion of this deeply -learned and impartial scholar. 
Says Gieseler : " the internal difference, in language 
and modes of thought, between the Apocalypse which 
John wrote before he had passed beyond the Hebrew 
training and the Palestinian Jewish Christianity, and 
the Gospel and the Epistles which he wrote after 
living from twenty to thirty years among the Greeks, 
is so inevitable a consequence of the circumstances in 
which he was placed, that, had this effect not occurred, 
the fact would have awakened suspicion. And yet 
there exist in the two works many points of resem- 
blance, and evidences of the continuity of the author's 
development and culture." * 

2. But even if it were established that the Apoca- 
lypse and the fourth Gospel are not from one author, 
the verdict must still be given in favor of the genuine- 
ness of the Gospel. Bleek agrees, on the whole, with 
De Wette and Baur in supposing that we are com 
pelled to reject the Johannean authorship of one or the 
other, and, in common with Neander and many other 
critics of the evangelical as well as the unbelieving 

1 Gieseler's K. £., B. I. s. 127. N. 8. 



128 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

school, holds the opinion that the Apocalypse is 
not the work of John. As we have said, provided the 
dilemma can be made out to exist, this is the reasonable 
opinion. The Apocalypse has no doubt been in the 
church since the date we have assigned for its compo- 
sition. As early as Justin Martyr it was quoted 
as the work of the Apostle John ; but its genuineness 
was also early questioned. It was questioned not 
only by the Alogi, but also by the Roman presbyter 
Caius (circa 200) who likewise ascribed it to Cerin- 
thus. 1 Dionysius of Alexandria, the pupil and suc- 
cessor of Origen, to whose opinion on the style of 
the Apocalypse we have adverted, endeavors to prove 
from internal evidence that the Apostle John did 
not write the work, and is inclined to attribute it to a 
contemporary of the Apostle at Ephesus, John the 
presbyter. Eusebius leans to the same opinion. He, 
also, hesitates about placing it among the Homologou- 
mena, or New Testament writings which were univer- 
sally received as apostolical. 2 It was not included in 
the ancient Syrian version. Long after it was 
received universally in the Western church, doubts 
concerning its genuineness continued in the East. If 
written by John the presbyter, " a holy and inspired 
man," as Dionysius supposes him to be, the later 
habit of ascribing it to the Apostle, may have been 
a mistake for which the real author was not respon- 

1 Euseb., Lib. III. c. 28. 2 Euseb., Lib. III. c. 25. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 129 

sible. And if the denial of its genuineness sprang 
from the great reaction of the Church in the second 
century against Chiliastic views, it was supported, as 
we have seen in the case of Dionysius, by critical 
arguments. The evidence for the apostolic authorship 
of the Apocalypse is far from being equal to the accu- 
mulated weight of evidence for the Johannean author- 
ship of the fourth Gospel. Eor the former, the main 
proofs of a composition by the Apostle are external. 
In the case of the fourth Gospel, besides having 
all that can be asked in the way of external evidence, 
we are able to add the most impressive internal proofs 
of its genuineness. 

In giving the internal evidence for the genuineness 
of John, it would be a great oversight to omit a 
notice of the proof afforded by the last chapter. 
Every reader of the Gospel will observe that in the 
last verses of the twentieth chapter the author appears 
to be concluding his work. It was held by Grotius, 
with whom agree many living critics on the evangel- 
ical side, as well as Zeller and other disciples of the 
Tubingen school, that the entire twenty-first chapter is 
from another hand. Others are of opinion that this 
is true of the last two verses alone. That such is 
the fact respecting the last verse and the last half of 
the verse preceding, from the words, " and we know 
that his testimony is true,"' — admits of no rational 
doubt. The remainder of the chapter bears strong 
marks of genuineness, although it is not improbable 



130 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

that John added the chapter to his Gospel as a sort of 
supplement. In any case, it is obvious that the con- 
versation upon the question whether John was to 
survive until the advent of Christ, would possess no 
interest and have no pertinency at any time long 
subsequent to his death. But the concluding verses, 
regarded, as they must be, in the light of a testimony 
to the genuineness of the Gospel on the part of 
the person or persons by whom it was issued, consti- 
tute an impressive proof. The fact that this attesta- 
tion is anonymous indicates that he or they who made 
it, were well known to those for whom it was de- 
signed ; it is utterly inconsistent with the supposi- 
tion of fraud. What meaning or value would an 
attestation wholly anonymous have possessed, at the 
first appearance of the Gospel, unless the source 
whence this testimony proceeded were well known? 
An impostor would have named the church of Ephesus 
or its bishop, if he had intended to give a facti- 
tious credit to his forgery, by claiming their sanction 
for it. Suppose this conclusion to have been written 
by friends to whom John had delivered his Gospel, 
and from whom it w^ent forth to the world, and 
the whole phenomenon is explained. 

In the preceding pages, various objections from 
the side of disbelievers in the genuineness of this 
Gospel have been incidentally considered. Yet the 
aim has been positively to establish our proposition, 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 131 

with the introduction of no more of polemical matter 
than seemed indispensable to this end. We now 
propose to subject the theory of Baur to a more 
detailed examination. 

Baur's Theory Respecting the Authorship of 
the Fourth Gospel. 

To reduce the observations of Baur to a self- 
consistent hypothesis is not an easy task. In general, 
however, he holds that the main idea of this Gospel 
is the development of the unbelief of the Jews in its 
conflict with the self-manifestation of Christ, until that 
unbelief culminates in the taking of his life. Baur is 
not original in supposing this to be a leading thought 
in the writer's mind. But nothing is thereby proved 
against the verity of the history, since the actual 
course of Christ's life was attended with the develop- 
ment of a spirit of disbelief, which finally broke out 
in the great act of violence. But Baur goes farther. 
He pretends that the history is fictitious and is ar- 
tificially contrived as a vestment for the idea. This, 
however, is not the sole idea for which, as it is 
claimed, the writer weaves a fictitious dress. That 
faith, in order to be real and of any value, must 
be self-sustained by an inward power of its own, with 
no help from outward proof through miracles, is sup- 
posed to be another leading thought of the writer; 
and this, it is pretended, he illustrates by means of 
invented narrative. Besides, Baur professes to find the 



132 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

traces of Gnostic Dualism in the antithesis of light 
and darkness, to which the Gospel writer more than 
once adverts. 1 Sometimes the language of Baur 
would seem to imply that the Evangelist, misled 
by the vividness of his own conceptions, actually con- 
founds them with reality. But, notwithstanding an 
occasional vague expression of this kind, it is Baur's 
real meaning, as he abundantly explains, that the 
narratives of the fourth Gospel are intentional fictions 
composed to embody certain ideas and recommend 
them to acceptance. 

This remarkable hypothesis Baur undertakes to 
support by exegesis. The character of his interpreta- 
tions we shall now exhibit to the reader. We should 
observe that in this department of our inquiry we 
have derived essential aid from the acute observations 
of Bruckner. 

1. There is no truth in the charge that a Dualistic 
theory is taught in John's Gospel. In connection 
with every passage which Baur cites, the distinction 
between light and darkness is declared to be ethical. 
It is not a physical or metaphysical separation, but is 
founded in voluntary character. Men remain in dark- 
ness " because their deeds are evil ;" they will not 
come to the light for fear of being rebuked. See 
John hi. 19-21 ; also, compare John viii. 47 with viii. 
34, and John xii. 35, 36 with John xii. 43. It is said 
that " all things were made by " the Word, and that 

1 Baur, Die Kanon. Evangelien, s. 88, 89. 



REFUTATION OF BAUll. 133 

He " came unto His oivn" i. e., to the Jews (John 
i. 3, 11). How baseless then is the imputation of a 
Gnostic Dualism to the Evangelist, in which the 
Jews, or most of them, are destitute of " the light- 
nature ! " 

2. Baur's exposition of the passages relative to 
John the Baptist is most unnatural. In c. i. 32, 33 
there is given the testimony of John the Baptist to the 
descent of the Spirit, as a dove, upon Jesus. This 
sign, he said, had been appointed " by Him who sent 
me to baptize with water." How plain, especially 
with the narrative of the Synoptics before us, that the 
recognition of Jesus was at his baptism, which 
the Evangelist notices here, though it had taken place 
earlier than the events just before recorded ! Yet 
Baur denies this, and even denies that the passage 
implies that Jesus was baptized by John ! Baur 
attempts to establish the existence of an artificial 
chronology — a double trias of days, beginning with 
c. i. 29 and terminating with c. ii. 12; but we need 
say no more than that the double trias is made 
out by assuming a new day, falsely and without the 
slightest support from the text, at ver. 41. Had the 
Evangelist contrived the chronological scheme which 
his critic imputes to him, he would not have omitted 
to make the division of time at ver. 41, which the 
critic interpolates. 

Baur's treatment of the narrative of the miracle 
in Cana is extraordinary. Why a circumstantial ac- 



134 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

count of this kind should be deliberately fabricated by 
such a writer as the Evangelist, is a question not easy 
to answer. Baur sees in it an allegorical representa- 
tion of the position of John the Baptist (which is indi- 
cated by the water), and the transition to the higher 
position of Jesus (which is denoted by the wine) ; 
together with a further reference to Jesus under the 
symbol of the bridegroom. Not that the Evangelist 
means that his readers should regard his narrative as 
a fiction ; he would palm it off on them as fact. But 
it is the force of " the idea " in his own mind, which 
moves him to the invention of the story. It is hardly 
necessary to say that the notion of an allegory is 
favored by not so much as a hint in the narrative 
itself ; nay, it is excluded by the declaration (in ver. 
11) that the end of the miracle was the manifestation 
of the glory of Christ. 

A good illustration of the style of Baur's exegesis 
is afforded by his comments on John iii. 22, where 
Jesus is said to have tarried with his disciples and 
baptized. In the next chapter (John iv. 2), it is 
incidentally explained that Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples. That this explanation, omitted 
in the first passage, should be thrown in afterwards, is 
nothing strange. But Baur sees in the two passages 
the proofs of a deep design. The Evangelist, he 
thinks, would elevate Jesus above John, but would do 
it gradually, with a kind of artful rhetoric. Eirst, he 
equalizes the former with the latter, by stating that 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 135 

Jesus baptized ; then, after an interval, lie advances a 
step by adding that Jesus did not (like John) himself 
baptize, but caused this rite to be performed by his 
disciples. Such a puerile device is gravely imputed to 
the artless writer of this Gospel 1 

3. On other points in the earlier chapters of John, 
Baur's interpretation will not bear examination. It is 
represented that the author of the Gospel makes 
Judaea " the country " of Jesus (John iv. 44) ; 
although it is perfectly evident from the context that 
such is not his meaning, but that he ascribes the 
increasing admiration of Jesus on the part of the 
Galileans, his countrymen, to the commotion which 
he had occasioned at Jerusalem. Nicodemus is pro- 
nounced a fictitious character, introduced as a repre- 
sentative of the unbelieving Jews who require miracles, 
while the woman of Samaria is said to represent the 
susceptible Gentiles who believe without the need of 
miracles. Unfortunately for Baur's theory, Nicodemus 
is not described as an unbeliever, but as having some 
degree of faith, and the Samaritan woman believes in 
consequence of the evidence which she had of the 
miraculous knowledge of Christ, by whom she was 
told all things that ever she did (John iv. 29). 

4. The effort of Baur to destroy the credibility of 
the seventh chapter, a portion of the Gospel which is 
stamped with irresistible evidence of truth, leads him 
into still more perverse interpretation. Jesus (ver. 10) 
went up to the feast, not with his brethren, not openly, 



136 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

" but as it were in secret " — cog tv xqvtctco, This 
plain statement, Baur not only twists into a declaration 
that Jesus made himself, after a Docetic fashion, invisi- 
ble, but, also, that he presented himself before the 
Jews in a form different from his own. And this is 
only one of the misinterpretations which the seventh 
chapter is made to suffer. Of this misrepresentation 
of the sense of cog tv xqvtttco, Bruckner says : " it is 
not sustained by the words themselves, it rests upon 
the false interpretation of vs. 15 and 20, and it is 
fully refuted by ver. 14, where the public appearance 
of Christ without any such Docetic transformation is 
related, as well as by ver. 25, where Jesus is actually 
recognized by some at the same moment when others 
do not know him, — so that, if Baur's view were right, 
he must have taken on a shape which veiled the 
identity of his person from some, while it was disclosed 
to others." Baur's treatment of the entire chapter, 
Bruckner has well exposed. " According to Baur/' 
says this able critic, " the theological end (tendency) to 
be accomplished by the seventh chapter is to show how 
the dialectics into which unbelief enters carry their 
own dialectical refutation ; and in this way, that Jesus 
in three different sorts of self-manifestation confronts 
the unbelief of the Jews : in the first, tv xqvnrco ; in 
the second, at ver. 28 ; in the third, at vs. 37 seq. 
This whole arrangement by Baur breaks to pieces on 
the correct interpretation of ver. 10, which refers to no 
appearance of Christ before the Jews, such as Baur 



REFUTATION OY BAUR. 137 

pretends to be referred to by the tv xqvtvtco ; it, also, 
clashes with the fact that the favorable inclination of 
the people to Jesus (vs. 12, 31, 40, 41) is just as 
often brought forward, as is the unbelief of the Jews ; 
it ignores the distinction between " the people " (o^kog) 
and the Rulers, which runs through the whole chapter, 
and which greatly influences the words of Christ, as 
well as the replies to him and the judgment concerning 
them ; it robs the narrative, in which the Evangelist is 
much more concerned with things done than with 
things said, of its life ; and it imputes to the Evange- 
list purposes which are nowhere indicated, and have no 
more plausibility than a great many others which 
might be suggested with an equal or greater show of 
justice." x If we could reasonably ascribe to the 
author of the Gospel any "tendency/' it would be 
more rational to say that he designed to set forth the 
schism between the people and the rulers, and even 
among the rulers themselves, than to exhibit the 
unbelief of the Jews as a body. And Baur's exegesis 
of this chapter may serve as a touchstone of his 
theory. He is under the necessity of finding in this, 
as in every other narrative in the Gospel, some occult 
design, "the idea," which sw T ays the writer in the 
contrivance of his alleged fiction. To explain the 
narrative in detail conformably to this theory is found 
quite impossible, without a resort to the most fanciful 
and violent interpretation. 

1 Bruckner's De Wette, s. 139, 140. 



138 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

5. Baur would have us believe that the Evangelist 
has made up various tales and conversations in order 
to exhibit a particular conception of faith and of 
unbelief. Thus, the belief of the Samaritans and the 
belief of the nobleman (John iv. 39, 50) are designed, 
we are assured, to commend a faith which is founded 
on the words of Christ, instead of on miracles. It is 
impossible not to see the difference of the two cases. 
The faith of the Samaritans was first awakened by the 
saying — did tov loyov — of the woman : " He told me 
all that ever I did." It rested on belief in her testi- 
mony to the exhibition of miraculous knowledge. 
The nobleman, on the contrary, believed the word — ■ 
rep Xoyco — of Jesus ; that is, credited a particular 
declaration; and he "believed," at least was assured 
in his faith, after the miracle and in consequence of it, 
ver. 53. Equally fanciful is Baur's notion that the 
design of the sixth chapter is to depict the manner 
in which a faith that is produced by miracles, shows 
itself a mere semblance of faith ; that the allusion to 
Judas (vi. 64) is to show how a perverse will be- 
comes likewise the mere counterfeit of faith ; that 
the inquiry, " have any of the Rulers or the Phari- 
sees believed on him," is put into the mouth of the 
Pharisees and Priests for the purpose of presenting the 
climax of unbelief, when it rests upon no grounds at 
all ! The case of Thomas is considered by Baur to be 
a fiction to illustrate the doctrine that faith, when based 
on sight, is no faith. But Jesus does not say that 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 139 

Thomas has no faith ; he says the opposite. He says, 
" because thou hast seen, thou hast believed" and then 
exalts the faith of those who have not seen. But 
these last are not those who believe without evidence, 
but who believe on the evidence of testimony, which 
Thomas (ver. 25) had refused to do. That Baur's 
interpretation of the Evangelist's design is false, the 
verses immediately following the account of the skep- 
ticism of Thomas decisively prove : " Many other signs 

truly did Jesus but these are written, that ye might 

believe that Jesus is the Christ ', the Son of God" 

6. Certain circumstances in the narrative of John 
which to an unprejudiced reader afford irresistible 
evidence of its historical truth, are construed by this 
hostile and suspicious criticism into proofs of sinister, 
mendacious contrivance. For example, the anointing 
of the eyes of the blind man with clay (c. ix. 6) is 
pronounced an invention to make the breaking of the 
Sabbath more marked ; and the delays and reluctance 
of Pilate, which are so true to nature, are fabricated to 
enhance the guilt of the Jews in condemning him. 
In the same spirit Baur charges that the hearing of 
Jesus before Annas is a fabrication to heighten the 
guilt of the Jews; although John does not stop to 
record the actual condemnation of Jesus «by either 
Annas or Caiaphas, and a careful examination of his 
narrative (comp. John xviii. 24 with vs. 18, 25, 28) 
shows that the denials of Peter took place after Jesus 
was led away from Annas to Caiaphas, so that nothing 



140 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

that occurred in the interview with the former is 
recorded. One of the most extravagant specimens of 
the Tubingen method of criticism is the notion that in 
this Gospel there is a studied depreciation of Peter. 1 
The honor put upon Peter by his Master's solemn 
charge (John xxi. 15, 18), an incident recorded by no 
other evangelist, would seem to be a sufficient refuta- 
tion of a charge which rests on trivial grounds. It is 
even affirmed by these critics that in John xviii. 26, 
where one of the servants who interrogated Peter is 
characterized as a kinsman of the person " whose ear 
Peter cut off," the Evangelist goes out of his way to 
bring in an act discreditable to Peter; an act, too, 
which these critics also say is falsely attributed to him. 
A double falsification is thus laid to the charge of the 
Evangelist, and in one instance, at least, a very cun- 
ning falsification. Our readers must judge whether 
thoughts like these really had their birth in the mind 
of the Evangelist, or only in the mind of his critic. 

7. Baur dwells with much emphasis on the account 
of the piercing of the side of the crucified Jesus by a 
soldier's lance, as a passage fully sustaining his hypo- 
thesis respecting the general character of the Gospel, 
and in particular his theory that the author dates the 
crucifixion on the morning before the occurrence of the 
Jewish passover meal, in order to make that event 
coincide chronologically with the slaying of the pass- 
over-lamb. Having said that the soldiers did not 

1 Baur, s. 323. 



REFUTATION OF BATJR. 141 

break the legs of Christ, but that one of them pierced 
his side, probably in order to assure himself that he 
was dead, as he appeared to be, the Evangelist adds 
(John xix. 36, 37) : " these things were done that the 
scripture should be fulfilled, ' a bone of him shall not 
be broken.' And again another scripture saith, ' they 
shall look on him whom they pierced/ ,: Now this 
passage is all that the Gospel says which can be 
thought to imply a similitude between Christ and the 
slain lamb of the passover. 1 We are willing to 
concede that such an analogy is here implied, in the 
circumstance that the bones of Christ were not broken. 
But the attention of the Evangelist is more drawn to 
the fact that predictions are fulfilled (see ver. 37), 
irrespective of the thought that thereby Jesus was 
exhibited as the Passover-Lamb ; and his interest is 
still greater in the surprising fact that water with blood 
flowed from the wound in his side. Had it been a 
leading purpose on his part to set forth a parallelism 
between the crucifixion and the slaying of the lamb, a 
purpose so prominent in his mind as to lead him to 
contradict *the received authorities by misdating 
Christ's death, it is impossible that the analogy should 
have been suggested in so cursory and incidental a 
way. He would infallibly have made his theological 
idea clear and conspicuous. The Apostle Paul himself, 

1 The exclamation of the Baptist (John i. 29) refers to the con- 
ception of the Messiah which was drawn from Isaiah liii., and not 
to the lamb of the passover. 



142 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

who, according to Baur, undoubtedly placed the death 
of Jesus on the morning after the Jewish passover- 
meal, brings forward even more explicitly the same 
analogy which John is supposed to suggest, and 
probably does suggest, in the passage on which we are 
commenting. Paul says (1 Cor. v. 7) : " for even 
Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us." It is 
worthy of note that the same thought which is 
innocent when suggested by Paul, is made to bear so 
tremendous a burden of consequences when suggested 
by the Evangelist. The reader will not forget that 
this passage in John in respect to the piercing of the 
body of Christ by the soldier's lance, is accompanied 
by a solemn asseveration of its truth, the Evangelist — 
for it is of himself that the writer speaks — professing 
to have been an eyewitness (c. xix. 35). It is curious 
to inquire how Baur disposes of this passage, which if 
it be false, must be held to resemble very closely 
wilful lying, notwithstanding the disquisitions of the 
Tubingen critics about anonymity, the license allowed 
to literary forgery in the old time, and " the power of 
the idea." Baur's language, in commenting on this 
asseveration of the Evangelist, is unusually hazy. He 
appears to say that it is only the truth of the intuition 
that Christ in dying opened the fulness of spiritual 
life for the believing world, which " the Evangelist 
testifies to with the immediate certainty of his Chris- 
tian consciousness." It cannot be Baur's intention to 
say that the Evangelist does not design to make his 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 143 

readers believe in the objective facts which he here 
records ; and yet the critic shrinks, with a somewhat 
commendable feeling, from distinctly charging him 
with conscious mendacity. It will be plain to every 
unsophisticated mind that what is called " the might 
of the idea/' granting that such a force was operative 
in the Evangelist's mind, would lead no one but a liar 
deliberately to affirm that he had seen a certain person 
struck with a lance by a soldier, when he had not. 

8. It would be easy to multiply from Baur's 
treatise examples of what we cannot but consider a 
wholly improbable, and even forced, exegesis of pas- 
sages in this Gospel. For the present discussion, 
however, it is only essential to notice his interpreta- 
tions so far as they are employed to sustain his lead- 
ing hypothesis. Yet, we cannot forbear to mention 
one or two additional instances of this unnatural con- 
struction of the Evangelist's words. The critic finds 
in the reply of the risen Jesus to the salutation of 
Mary : " go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I 
ascend unto my Father," an expression of the pur- 
pose of Christ to ascend on the instant ; and, accord- 
ing to Baur, that he did then and there ascend, is the 
Evangelist's idea. It is hardly necessary to say that 
the present tense of the verb does not at all confine us 
to this strange inference, which is contradicted by vs. 
26, 27. It is obviously the idea of the Evangelist 
that Christ had been on the earth up to the time of his 
meeting Mary (vs. 1-17), which of itself overthrows 



144 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

Baur's notion that he is represented as ascending imme- 
diately on his rising from the dead. A signal instance 
of a similar style of exegesis, as well as illustration of 
the embarrassment in which Baur involves himself in 
his arraignment of the Evangelist, is the explanation 
he gives of John xiv. 31, a passage which we have 
adduced in proof of the fidelity of the Evangelist's 
report of the discourses of Christ : " Arise, let us go 
hence " (ly8iQ&6-frb, ayco/mv). These words, which 
were doubtless a current phrase, happen to be used 
by Christ, according to Matt. xxvi. 46, in another 
connection. The author of John, says Baur, found 
them in the Synoptics and introduced them at this 
place, in order to make a pause ! It happens that a 
pause is made without this phrase, which in any event 
would be perfectly inapposite to the purpose. As 
far as we can see, the Evangelist might as well be 
conceived to introduce the fragment of a genealogy 
for the sake of making a transition to a new topic, as 
a phrase like this. 

These curiosities of interpretation remind us of 
the incongruous representations of the Tubingen 
criticism in regard to the relation of the Evangelist 
to the synoptical writers. All concede that the fourth 
Gospel, in structure and contents, has the character 
of an independent narrative. This independence the 
Tubingen critics, in many instances, exaggerate into 
an intended contradiction, and a seemingly needless 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 145 

contradiction on essential points. Yet they affirm, 
in the same breath, that even on these points where 
the Evangelist wantonly breaks loose from the synop- 
tical authorities, he slavishly borrows from them. It 
is in imitation of the synoptical writers that John 
makes Jesus visit Jerusalem to attend festivals ; yet 
he does not scruple to contradict them in multiplying 
the number of these visits : he takes from the other 
Gospels the circumstance of the scourging in the 
temple, but transfers it from the end to the beginning 
of his ministry : he is dependent on the same writers 
for much that is said of John's baptism " with water," 
and his recognition of Jesus (John i. 31, 35), and yet 
implies that Jesus was not baptized. Tor these and 
numerous other supposed deviations from the Synop- 
tics, the critics are able to assign no sufficient reasons. 
The Synoptics might have been followed, and the ends 
attributed to the Evangelist equally well secured. 
The Tubingen pretension is most inconsistent when 
single words and scraps of sentences are alleged to be 
borrowed from the first three Gospels, although the 
passages where they are found in the Evangelist are, 
in their matter, original and wholly independent of 
those Gospels. A good example is the passage, 
"Arise, let us go hence" (John xiv. 31), which has 
already been referred to. Sometimes Baur is obliged 
to fall back on hypotheses more characteristic of 
Strauss, in order to provide his readers with some 
explanation of the narratives of miracles. Thus, the 

10 



146 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

raising of Lazarus is to present an exertion of miracu- 
lous power, which is a grade above the case, in the 
Synoptics, of the raising of the son of the widow of 
Nain. Of course, not a particle of proof is vouch- 
safed in support of this empty conjecture. Again, 
Baur contends that the narrative of the healing of the 
nobleman's son (John iv. 46 seq.) is a copy or imita- 
tion of the narrative in Matt. viii. 5 seq. of the cure 
of the centurion's servant. Baur supposes that the 
former narrative was to prove the superiority, in the 
judgment of Christ, of a faith which rests on his 
word alone ; and he further supposes that a constant 
aim of the fourth Gospel is to covertly extol the 
susceptibility of the Gentiles, in contrast with the 
unbelief of the Jews. Now in Matthew's narrative 
(Matt, viii.), Jesus is represented to have marvelled 
at the centurion's faith, and to have said : " Verily I 
say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not 
in Israel ! " If the author of John were following 
Matthew's narrative, this would be the most welcome 
and the most apposite passage in the whole of it. Yet 
he omits it altogether ! Can a hypothesis receive a 
more complete overthrow than is experienced by that 
of Baur concerning this portion of John ? 

We have judged it desirable thus to sift the inter- 
pretations of the Tubingen critics, for the sake of 
thoroughly acquainting our readers with the character 
of the arguments which are relied upon in the assault 
upon the genuineness of this Gospel. Be it remem- 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 147 

bered that all this unsound, artificial interpretation is 
indispensable to the success of their cause. A corres- 
pondence must be found between the various inci- 
dents, conversations, discourses, in John and the 
theological " tendency " which has the credit of 
fabricating them. A failure to detect this corres- 
pondence, in the detailed investigation of the Gospel, 
and by a fair exegesis of it, is the downfall of the 
entire theory, even if there were nothing else to be 
said against it. That such a failure is justly attribu- 
table to the critic, the foregoing examination has 
sufficiently evinced. 

In a previous part of this Essay, we have re- 
marked upon the proofs of an interest in the history 
as such — a genuine historical feeling — on the part of 
the author of this Gospel. These are proofs which, be- 
ing obviously undesigned features in the narrative, are 
peculiarly impressive. And since the variations in 
John from the synoptical Gospels can be accounted 
for on no such theory as that of the Tubingen critics, 
we are authorized in pronouncing them evidences 
of the faithful recollection of the Evangelist. Let the 
reader examine his account of the baptism of Jesus 
and the testimony to Jesus by the Baptist (John i. 
19-37) ; his record of the calling of the apostles 
(John i. 35-43) ; his description of the designation 
of the traitor, at the last supper (John.xiii. 21-30); 
his narrative of the denials of Peter (John xxiii. 15 



148 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

seq.) ; his specification of the dates of the supper and 
the crucifixion ; his relation of the circumstances 
attending the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. Let 
the reader compare the Evangelist in these places 
with corresponding passages in the Synoptics, and 
he will feel that he has in his hands an independent 
and accurately informed historian. 

When Baur, leaving the special criticism of the 
Gospel, proceeds to state his conception of the charac- 
ter and motives of the author of this extraordinary 
composition, he betrays, if we mistake not, in his 
lowered, apologetic tone, some feeling of embarrass- 
ment. What conception have the Tubingen critics 
of the writer of this Gospel ? He was a man, as 
Baur says, of remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, 
and penetrated with a warm, adoring faith in Christ 
as the Son of God and Saviour of the world. That 
faith must have been founded on the evangelical 
history. At least, it must have involved a reverential 
sense of the sacredness of that history. How could 
such a man fabricate a life of his Master, as a sub- 
stitute for the authentic lives with which he was 
acquainted? How could he pervert, distort, falsify 
transactions, with the reality of which his holiest feel- 
ings were bound up ; artfully assuming to be an 
apostle and confidant of the Lord, for the sake of 
ascribing to him discourses that he never uttered and 
deeds that he never performed ! Baur compares the 



V 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 149 

Evangelist with the Apostle Paul. 1 He, says Baur, 
was not one of the original disciples. It was only 
through visions that he personally knew Christ. And 
Baur draws a deliberate parallel between the Apostle 
to the Gentiles, and the unknown but gifted and 
ardently believing author of this Gospel. The com- 
parison is an unhappy one for his theory. Imagine 
the Apostle Paul sitting down to fabricate a fictitious 
history of the Saviour ! Imagine him casting away 
the authentic deeds and words of Christ and invent- 
ing in the room of them a fictitious tale of his life ! 
The thought of so sacrilegious an act could never 
occur to his earnest soul. Had it been suggested by 
another, with what indignation and horror would he 
have repelled the proposal ! No reader of the Pauline 
Epistles will have a doubt on this point. Yet an im- 
posture even more flagrant is attributed to the 
author of the fourth Gospel, for he claims to be a com- 
panion of Christ ; while at the same time his accusers 
associate him with Paul, as a counterpart in intellec- 
tual and moral qualities, and in the depth and ardor of 
his faith in the Lord. The religionists, weak-minded 
and of obscure moral perceptions, who are responsible 
for the clumsy fabrications found in the apocryphal 
Gospels, for the most part confined themselves to 
those periods of Christ's life where the canonical 
authors are silent, such as the infancy of the Lord. 
They sought to connect with the authentic narratives 

1 Baur's Kan. Evangelien, s. 384. 



150 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

their silly inventions. It was reserved for the writer 
of the fourth Gospel to attain to that pitch of audacity, 
or that confusion as to the distinction between truth 
and falsehood, which qualified him to extend his 
cleverly executed fraud over the whole contents of 
the evangelical history. And yet he was one fit to be 
placed in the same category with Paul ! 

It is incredible that a work of the power and 
loftiness of the fourth Gospel should have sprung up 
in the second century. Let any one who would 
understand the difference between the apostolic and 
the next following age undertake to read the Apostolic 
Fathers. He will be conscious at once that he has 
passed into another atmosphere. He has descended 
from the heights of inspiration to the level of ordinary, 
and often feeble, thinking. In the first half of the 
second century there is no writer of marked origi- 
nality ; none who can be called fresh or suggestive. 
To set a work like the fourth Gospel in that age is a 
literary anachronism. That a writer, towering so 
above all his contemporaries, should stoop to wear a 
mask, and gain his end by a hateful, Jesuitical contri- 
vance, is a supposition burdened with difficulties. The 
irrational character of this hypothesis, Neander has 
well shown in a passage which is valuable alike for 
its thoughts and for the source whence they come, and 
with which we conclude the present Essay. 

"The whole development of the Church from 
Justin Martyr onward testifies to the presence of such 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 151 

a Gospel, which operated powerfully on men's minds. 
It cannot be explained from any succeeding mental 
tendency in the following age, nor from the amalgama- 
tion of several. To be sure, this production existed 
as a representation of a higher unity, as a reconciling 
element with reference to the contrarieties of that age, 
and could exert an attractive power over minds of 
so opposite a kind as a Heracleon, a Clement of Alex- 
andria, an Irenseus, and a Tertullian. Where should 
we be able to find in that age a man who was eleva- 
ted above its contrarieties of opinion [Gegensatze], 
by which everything is more or less swayed? And 
a man of so superior a Christian soul, must needs 
skulk in the dark, avail himself of such a mask, 
instead of appearing openly in the consciousness of 
all-conquering truth and in the feeling of his mental 
preeminence ! Such a man, so exalted above all the 
church Fathers of that century, had no need, forsooth, 
to shrink from the conflict. He must certainly have 
put more confidence in the might of truth than in 
these arts of darkness and falsehood. And how can 
it be shown that such a man, when he is contemplated 
from the point of view of his own age, would have 
been restrained by no reverence for sacred history, by 
no scruples, from falsifying a history, the contents 
of which were holy to him, through arbitrary fictions, 
manufactured in the interest of a given dogmatic 
tendency, — through lies, in fact, which were to find 
their justification in the end to be attained by means 



152 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

of them? And how unskilfully would he have pro- 
ceeded if, in order to attain his end, he presented the 
history of Christ in a way that was in absolute con- 
trast with the universally accepted tradition? Nay, 
only from such an apostle, who stood in such a rela- 
tion to Christ as a John stood, who had thus taken up 
into his own being the impression and image of that 
unique personality, could proceed a work which stands 
in such a relation to the contrarieties of the post- 
apostolic age. It is a work out of one gush, original 
throughout. The Divine in its own nature has this 
power of composing differences, but never could a 
product so fresh, so original in its power [urkraftiges], 
proceed from a contrived, shrewdly planned, recon- 
ciliation of differences. This Gospel, if it do not 
emanate from the Apostle John and point to that 
Christ, the intuition of whom, on the part of the 
writer, gave birth to it, is the greatest of enigmas." 1 

1 Neander's GescMchte d. Pflanz. u. Lett, der Kirche, 4 A. B. 2, 
s. 637 



ESSAY III. 

RECENT DISCUSSION'S UPON THE ORIGIN OF THE 
FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

The characteristics which belong in common to 
the first three Gospels, and distinguish them from the 
Gospel of John, we suppose to be familiar to the 
reader. The first three Gospels — the Synoptics — 
dwell chiefly upon the Galilean ministry of Jesus. 
Compared with John, they are less heedful of the 
chronological order. In truth, the chronological out- 
line of the Saviour's ministry can be gathered from 
the fourth Gospel alone. The Synoptics not only 
have a large amount of matter in common, but 
their consonance in phraseology extends too far to 
be the result of accident; at the same time that 
the divergences, existing side by side with this resem- 
blance, equally demand an explanation. This mingled 
divergence and coincidence have put to the test the 
ingenuity of critics. One general theory is that of an 
original Gospel, existing prior to the three, but revised 
or enlarged by each historian independently. But 
this theory has two branches, there being some who 
hold that the original Gospel was a written work, 
whilst others consider it a mass of oral tradition which 



154 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

had acquired a fixed form. The other general theory 
is that of a priority on the part of one of the evange- 
lists, the use of whose work by a successor gives occa- 
sion to the peculiarity in question. But the various 
hypotheses which have been brought forward under 
this theory, or the different views as to the order 
in which the Gospels were written_, exhaust the possi- 
bilities of supposition. They form, in fact, an ex- 
ample in permutation. Matthew, Luke, and Mark, 
was the series in the hypothesis of Griesbach, which 
has been extensively followed. Another set of critics 
are equally confident that the precedence in age 
belongs to Mark. 1 Others, again, are satisfied with 
neither of these views. The long-continued diversity 
of opinion on the subject is a sign of the difficulty of 
the problem. This problem we do not propose to 
discuss in the present Essay. We might even waive 
the question whether these three narratives were com- 
posed by the persons to whom they are respectively 
ascribed, were it not that this question cannot be 
wholly disconnected from the proposition which we 
deem to be of prime importance. Could it be shown, 
as is maintained by some critics who accept the narra- 
tive as substantially historical and credible, that the 
first Gospel was not written by Matthew, the propo- 
sition with which we are at present concerned, would 

1 For a full classification of critical opinions on this subject, see 
Meyer's Einleitung to the first volume of his commentary on the 
N. T., or Holtzmann's recent work, Die Synoplische Evangclien. 



AIM OF THE SKEPTICAL SCHOOL. 155 

not be seriously affected. What, then, is the question 
of fundamental importance, on which the credibility 
of the Gospel history turns ? 

The main thing which the skeptical school seeks to 
accomplish, as far as the first three Gospels are con- 
cerned, is to bring down their date into the post-apos- 
tolic age. History is testimony. The credibility of 
testimony depends — supposing that those who give it 
wish to tell the truth — on their means of information. 
The credibility of the Gospels is conditioned on the 
fact that they emanate either from actual witnesses of 
the events recorded, or from well-informed contempo- 
raries. If it could be established that these narratives 
were drawn up long after the actors in the events, and 
the generation contemporaneous with them, had passed 
away — that they comprise floating stories and tradi- 
tions which were gathered up at or after the end of 
the century in which Christ and his immediate disci- 
ples, and those who heard their teaching, lived — their 
historical value might well be called in question. To 
support some hypothesis of this kind, or at least 
to throw a mist of uncertainty over the whole question 
of the origin and date of the Gospels, is the end and 
aim of skeptical criticism. We, on our part, maintain 
that nothing has been brought forward in behalf 
of the skeptical cause, which tends to weaken the 
established view that the Gospels belong to the apos- 
tolic age, embody the testimony of the eyewitnesses 
and earwitnesses of the life of Christ, and come 



156 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

down to us with the seal and sanction of the apos- 
tolic Church. 

We are not required to review in detail the proofs 
of the early date of these histories. It will be suffi- 
cient to examine the grounds on which the received 
view is sought to be impugned. It may be well, 
however, to remind the reader, in a few words, of the 
nature of the proof which has been relied on for estab- 
lishing the early origin of the first three Gospels 
— as it is these which we are now to consider. 
Every fair and discerning reader must feel how well 
the whole tone and style of these writings comport 
with the belief that they emanate from the first age of 
Christianity. Galilee is reflected in them in a thousand 
indefinable touches. Christ — to mention a single 
peculiarity — has not come to be an habitual name of 
the Saviour, as it begins to be even in the Epistles 
and in John, but is purely an official title. In these 
Gospels he is simply called Jesus. Eor the early date 
of the first three Gospels, we have the unanimous 
voice of Christian antiquity. They are considered and 
declared by the early Church to be authoritative pro- 
ductions handed down from the apostolic age. We 
find in the writers of the post-apostolic period no 
other conception of the life and ministry of Christ 
than is presented in the canonical Gospels. We meet 
here and there with a saying of Christ or an incident 
in his life which they would seem to have derived 
from some other source of knowledge ; but these ex- 






DATE OF THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. 157 

ceptions are so very few and unimportant as to render 
the prevailing fact of the coincidence between the 
representation of the Fathers and that of the Gospels 
the more striking. The apostolic Fathers do not 
formally state the sources whence their quotations are 
drawn. They commonly bring forward a fact of the 
Saviour's life or a passage of his teaching, without 
formal reference to the authority from which they 
derived it. Nor do they evince any care for verbal 
accuracy. But the apostolic Fathers, the contempo- 
raries and survivors of the apostles, contain many 
passages which are unmistakably drawn from the 
synoptical Gospels. The peculiar method of intro- 
ducing New Testament passages favors the supposi- 
tion that they quote from recognized documents. 
At least in one important passage, an authoritative 
written source is expressly referred to. Barnabas 
remarks : l " Let us therefore beware, lest it should 
happen to us as it is written : there are many called, 
few chosen." This quotation, which is found in Matt. 
xx. 16 and xxii. 14, is introduced by the same phrase 
which the Jews made use of in citing from their 
sacred books. Barnabas referred to some book having 
a like authority among Christians, and in no other 
book of this class except our Matthew is the passage 
found. The value of this quotation as a decisive 
proof that, when it was made, the Gospel of Matthew 

1 c. iv. Whether the Epistle of Barnabas be genuine or not, it is 
certainly very early. 



158 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

was clothed with canonical authority, has been fully 
established by the recent discovery of the Greek text 
of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaiticus. By this docu- 
ment the phrase, it is written, is proved to be a part 
of the original, and not an addition of the Latin 
translator, as Credner and others had been inclined to 
maintain. The Epistle of Barnabas cannot be placed 
later than the beginning of the second century. 
That a canon of the New Testament had begun to be 
formed, is also clearly indicated by this manner of 
quotation. That Matthew did not stand as the sole 
Gospel in this canon, Tischendorf has argued on good 
grounds. 1 The drift of the evidence points to the 
conclusion that the four Gospels enjoyed then the 
preeminence which they bear in Justin and the wri- 
ters that follow him. This we know, that the long 
scrutiny which has been directed to the quotations in 
Justin has established, beyond all reasonable doubt, the 
fact of a use by him of all of our canonical Gospels. 
And Justin was born a little more than ten years 
before the end of the first century, and less than 
twenty years after the capture of Jerusalem, and at a 
time when the Apostle John was probably still living. 
Prom Matthew and Luke especially, his citations are 
very numerous. 

Let us now take up the Synoptics in their order, 
commencing with 

1 See Tischendorf, Wann wurden die E'cangelien vcrfasst ? p. 42 seq. 



MATTHEW. 159 



MATTHEW. 



I. We begin with an examination of the tes- 
timony of Papias, which, in respect to both Mat- 
thew and Mark, is most valuable, and has properly 
attracted the earnest attention of modern critics. 
Renan builds upon this testimony, or rather upon his 
misconception of it, his theory respecting the origin 
of the Gospels. Scholars of every school unite in 
their estimate of the importance to be attached to this 
piece of evidence. 

Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the 
first half of the second century. He is described by 
Irenaeus * as " an ancient man," a contemporary and 
friend of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the 
Evangelist. Irenaeus also states that Papias had 
himself heard the Apostle John, but Eusebius con- 
siders that Irenaeus errs in this particular by wrongly 
interpreting the language of Papias. But Papias says 
of himself that he made inquiries of many persons 
who had been familiar with the apostles, and he was 
certainly acquainted with John the Presbyter, who 
was a contemporary of John the Apostle at Ephesus. 
Partly, but not wholly, on account of his millenarian 
views, so offensive to Eusebius, Papias is pronounced 
by the latter a man of inferior talents. But however 
moderate his intellectual powers, he was justly re- 
garded as an honest witness or reporter of what he 

1 Quoted in Euseb., H. B. y Lib. iii. c. 39. 



160 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

had seen and heard. 1 He reports what he had re- 
ceived from companions of the apostles. He busied 
himself with gathering up from oral tradition the 
declarations of the apostles, which he published, with 
comments of his own, in a work consisting of five 
books. Prom this work, Eusebius presents us with 
the following extract : 

" And John the Presbyter said this : ' Mark being 
the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately whatever he 
remembered, though indeed not [setting down] in 
order what was said or done by Christ, for he did not 
hear the Lord, nor did he follow him : but afterwards, 
as I said, [he followed] Peter, who adapted his dis- 
courses to the necessities of the occasion, but not so as 
to furnish a systematic account of the oracles of the 
Lord {xvQLaxcov hoyicov or loycov) ; so that Mark 
committed no fault when he wrote some things as he 
recollected them. For of one thing he took care — to 
pass by nothing which he heard, and not to falsify in 
anything.'" "Such," adds Eusebius, "is the relation 
in Papias concerning Mark. But of Matthew this is 
said : ' Matthew wrote the oracles (rd loyia) in the 
Hebrew tongue • and every one interpreted them as he 
was able.' " 

1 The often-quoted passage in Papias relative to the colossal 
grapes to be expected in the Millennial age awakens no doubt as to 
his veracity. It only shows that apocryphal sayings of Christ were 
early set in circulation, and by its contrast with the style of the 
canonical Gospels, confirms their veracity. 



MATTHEW. 161 

The passage had always been considered, up to a 
recent date, as referring to our Gospels of Matthew 
and Mark. It was suggested, however, by Schleier- 
rnacher that the logia, which we have rendered ora- 
cles, signifies only discourses; and hence a number 
of critics, including the distinguished commentator, 
Meyer, have founded upon this testimony of Papias 
the opinion that at the basis of our first Gospel, and 
prior to it, was a collection by Matthew of the teach- 
ings of Christ, and that the canonical Gospel was the 
product of a subsequent addition of narrative matter 
to that earlier work. 

We believe this restriction of the sense of logia, 
in the passage, to be unauthorized and erroneous, and 
that the old interpretation of Papias, the interpreta- 
tion which Eusebius evidently gave the passage, is the 
true one. It is well, however, to see how the case 
stands, provided the term receives the limited meaning 
which these critics affix to it. Papias, in what he 
says of Matthew, does not quote the Presbyter ; 
yet it may safely be concluded that he derived this 
information from the same earlier authorities whence 
the rest of his work was drawn. 

The principal remark we have to make here is, 
that even supposing logia to mean discourses simply, 
yet Papias is speaking, as Meyer concedes and main- 
tains, aoristically — of something that had occurred at 
a former time, but was no longer the fact. That 

is, when he says that " everv one interpreted the 
11 



162 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

Hebrew Matthew as he could " — rj^jur^vevae $ avvu 
&g rjSvvocro txa6tog — he means, and implies in his 
language, that the necessity of rendering the Hebrew 
into the Greek had once existed, to be sure, but ex- 
isted no longer. Why not ? Evidently because the 
Greek Matthew was now in the hands of Christians. 
This Greek Matthew which Papias and his contempo- 
raries used, was unquestionably our first Gospel in its 
present form. Our Greek Matthew is represented by 
the Fathers to be a translation of a Hebrew Gospel. 
If we admit the correctness of the tradition, then, as 
Meyer shows, the Hebrew Matthew must have re- 
ceived its supplement of narrative matter, and in its 
complete form been generally connected with the 
name of this apostle, before the Greek version was 
made. The hypothesis that this Gospel received es- 
sential changes or additions of matter, subsequent to 
the time of Papias, is excluded by an overwhelming 
weight of evidence. There is,, indeed, other and suffi- 
cient proof that our Matthew existed in its present 
form within thirty or forty years of the Saviour's 
death. But independently of this proof, and even 
when the sense of logia is limited, the testimony of 
Papias himself — still more, if that testimony emanates, 
as is probably the fact, from pupils of apostles whom 
he had consulted — carries back the date of our Mat- 
thew, in its present form, into the apostolic age. 

But if logia cover the narrative matter as well as 
the discourses, and if Papias thus refers to the Gospel 



MATTHEW. 163 

of Matthew as we have it, the early origin of the 
Gospel is explicitly attested. 

That such is the real purport of the logia is 
apparent from the following considerations : 

1. The word is capable of this more extended 
import. It denotes sacred icords — oracles ; and with 
its kindred terms has this meaning not only in ecclesi- 
astical writers, but also in the New Testament. It is 
probably used in Heb. v. 12 as an equivalent for 
the whole Christian revelation. The restriction of its 
meaning by Meyer, in this place, is opposed by other 
good critics, including Bleek. 1 We have a clear 
example in Luke i. 4 : " that thou mightest know the 
certainty of those things — Xoycov — wherein thou hast 
been instructed." Luke writes a consecutive history 
of the life and ministry of Jesus in order to assure 
Theophilus of the certainty of the things which were 
believed among Christians, and had been taught him. 
The contents of the Gospel of Luke which follows, 

1 Xo'ym is used for the Old Testament — the whole revelation of 
God — in Eomans iii. 2. Other passages where the word is found, 
are Wisdom xvi. 11 (comp. v. 5) ; Acts vii. 38 ; 1 Peter iv. 11. For the 
sense of the word in ecclesiastical writers, see Suidas sub voce ; also 
Wettstein, T. ii. p. 36. Important illustrative passages are Ignatius ad 
Smyr. c. iii, and the classification of the Scriptures by Ephraem Syrus 
(in Photius). In this last place, ra Kvpia<a Xoyta seems to be plainly 
a designation of the Gospels. We may observe here, that even if the 
sense of logia in Papias were, philologically considered, doubtful, the 
existence of another work than our Matthew, for which there is not 
a particle of evidence from any other source, could not be inferred 
from a single doubtful expression. 



161 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

constitute the logoi. Even Meyer allows that the 
narrative matter is included in the word, though 
indirectly. The objection of Credner, that the applica- 
tion of the term logia, in the sense of divine words, to 
the New Testament writings, presupposes a view of 
their inspiration which was not prevalent so early as 
the time of Papias, has, in our judgment, no validity. 
The reverence of Papias for the declarations of the 
apostles, which breathes through the whole passage in 
Eusebius, accords well with such a mode of character- 
izing them. The form of the quotation from Matthew 
in Barnabas, on which we have commented above, 
shows the error of Credner 's opinion. The whole of 
the apostles' testimony in regard to the teachings and 
works of Christ, constituted the logia — the oracles of 
the Lord, or the oracles pertaining to the Lord. 1 

2. It is well-nigh certain that in the account which 
Papias gives of Marti s Gospel, the logia includes the 
works as well as words of Christ. Papias attributes a 
want of order to Mark's record of the words and 
works of Christ — the things " said or done " by Him. 
He then proceeds to explain the reason of this peculi- 
arity. Mark had derived his information from listening 
to the discourses of Peter. But Peter was in the habit 

1 It has been thought by some that the works and words of Christ 
were termed the " logia of the Lord," as being the total expression 
which He made of Himself. But this is less natural. Nor do we 
think that other critics are right in referring the logia to the dis- 
courses, as being the 'predominant feature of the gospel, or the 
feature with which Papias was chiefly concerned. 



MATTHEW. 165 

of selecting his matter to suit the occasion, and there- 
fore did not furnish a systematic statement of the logia 
of the Lord. 1 How can the logia here denote anything 
less than " the things said or done ? " Papias adds, 
that in writing some things according to his recollec- 
tion, Mark committed no fault. Even here Meyer's 
lexical scrupulosity would fain limit the logia to the 
discourses of Christ, and then make the " some things," 
which Mark set down without followino- the chrono- 
logical order, relate only to this part of his reports. 
But this interpretation is obviously strained, and 
appears to be directly overthrown by the circumstance 
that Papias attributes the absence of order to Mark's 
reports of the deeds as well as the words of Christ. 
Why should Peter observe the chronological order 
more carefully in referring to incidents in the life of 
Christ, than in recalling his discourses? That logia 
has the comprehensive meaning in the description of 
Matthew, is thus proved by the extended sense which 
we are under the necessity of attributing to it in the 
passage that follows respecting Mark. 

3. If the logia do not embrace the whole of Mat- 
thew,, then Papias furnishes no account of the origin 
of the Gospel, with the exception of that part of it 
which includes the discourses of Christ. He had in 
his hands, as Meyer and all sound critics admit, our 
complete Gospel of Matthew. It would be natural 
for him, if he began to give an account of its origin, 

1 The reading of Heinichen here is \6ycav ; but Xoylccv seems to be 
the generally adopted reading among critics. So Meyer and Bleek. 



166 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

to explain how the narrative portions of the Gospel were 
brought into it, Eusebius takes it for granted that 
Papias is explaining the origin of the canonical Gospel of 
Matthew, and for this reason cites the passage. Neither 
Eusebius nor any writer before him, nor any writer for 
fifteen centuries after him, knew anything of a collection 
of discourses of Matthew, or of any work of Matthew, 
save the entire canonical Gospel which bears his name. 

4. Irenaeus, whom Meyer elsewhere 1 pronounces 
an independent witness on the subject, says that Mat- 
thew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew. Irenaeus gives 
the same tradition which is given by Papias, who was 
an old man when Irenaeus was a youth. Irenaeus 
knows nothing of a composition of a report of the 
Saviour's discourses by the Apostle Matthew, which 
received a narrative supplement from some later hand. 
The other writers of the second century are equally 
ignorant of a fact which, if it be contained in the testi- 
mony of Papias, must have been generally known. 

5. The work of Papias himself was entitled an 
Exposition of the Oracles {Xoylcov) of the Lord. But, 
as we know from the fragments that remain, it was 
partly made up of narrative matter. Incidents in the 
life of Christ, and teachings of Christ, equally found a 
place in this work. Meyer, unjustifiably as we think, 
would make the narrative matter in Papias a part, not 
of the logia, but of the Exposition attached to the 
logia. The truth seems to be that Papias gathered up 

1 Meyer's Einl. z. Mattliaus, s, 5, 



MATTHEW. 167 

all that lie could hear of what the disciples of Christ 
had reported of him, and accompanied this record with 
observations of his own. 

We are persuaded, and we trust that the con- 
siderations above presented will convince our readers, 
that this restriction of the sense of logia, which goes 
no farther back than Schleiermacher, and is a subtlety 
that escaped Eusebius and Irenaeus, is without any 
good foundation. And we are brought to the conclu- 
sion that the testimony of Papias, that " ancient man," 
who had been conversant with many of the disciples 
of the apostles, establishes the fact of the origin of 
the first Gospel in the apostolic age. 

II. The relation of the Gospel of Matthew to the 
uncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews, affords proof of 
the early date of the former. 

The Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Aramaic 
dialect, was the most widely known of all the uncanon 
ical Gospels. It was the Gospel in use among the 
Hebrew Christian sects, which were separated from the 
general Church. It existed, however, in varying forms. 
Thus, the stricter Ebionites had cut off the first two 
chapters, in which the circumstances attending the 
miraculous birth of the Saviour were related. The 
numerous allusions in the Fathers to the Gospel of the 
Hebrews — the tvayytXcov xa& c Efigaiovg — make it 
clear that it had a close resemblance to the canonical 
MattheAV. A careful comparison demonstrates that it 



168 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

was our Matthew, altered and amplified. That the 
priority belongs to the canonical Gospel — whether it 
existed originally in the Hebrew or the Greek, we will 
not now inquire — is established. For example, in the 
Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew, 
there is quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews a 
narrative of the conversation of the young man with 
Jesus, a passage corresponding to Matthew xix. 16 seq. 
The young man, as in Matthew, comes to Jesus with 
his question as to the method of attaining eternal 
life. Jesus tells him to obey the law and the prophets. 
" He replies, ' I have done so.' Jesus said unto him, 
'come, sell all that thou hast and divide among the 
poor, and come, follow me.' But the rich man began to 
scratch his head, and was not pleased," etc. No one can 
doubt in regard to such a passage, that it springs from 
the amplification of the simple narrative in Matthew. 
The narrative is spun out with apocryphal details. 1 

We are concerned to ascertain, next, the age of the 
Gospel of the Hebrews. It was certainly known to 
Hegesippus, before the middle part of the second 
century. And there is no reason to think that it was 
then new. Himself a Hebrew Christian by birth, he 
had probably been long acquainted with it. But we 
will not indulge in conjecture. It is safe to affirm that 
the Church received no evangelical history from the 

1 The priority of Matthew has been convincingly shown by vari- 
ous writers ; among therri by Franck, in a thorough Article in the 
Studien u. Kriiiken, 1848, 2. 



MATTHEW. 169 

judaizing Christians after the latter had become separa 
ted. The existence of the Gospel of Matthew among 
them — for the Gospel of the Hebrews was an altered 
Matthew — requires us to conclude that it enjoyed a 
general acceptance before the Jewish-Christian parties 
were formed. But these acquired a distinct existence, 
according to the trustworthy testimony of Hegesippus, 
at the beginning, or about the beginning, of the second 
century. Before this, however, and from the time of 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the movement towards 
separation began. The judaizing Christians looked 
with growing jealousy and hostility upon the Gentile 
believers and their churches. To our mind, it is 
altogether improbable that the Gospel of Matthew 
could have been composed, and have been accepted 
by both classes of Christians, at any time subsequent 
— to say the least, long subsequent — to the destruction 
of Jerusalem by Titus. Besides the difficulty of ac- 
counting for its acceptance on both sides, on the sup- 
position of a later date, the partisan feelings of the 
judaizing Christian would infallibly have been reflected 
on its pages. But in this artless chronicle there is 
not the slightest trace of judaizing bitterness. 

III. We have to consider now the prophecies of 
the second advent of Christ, which are contained in 
Matthew, in their bearing on the date of the Gospel. 

In touching upon this topic, we are brought in 
contact, indeed, with the principal exegetical difficulty 



170 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

in the New Testament. The final advent of Christ to 
judgment, and the destruction of Jerusalem, appear 
to have been connected together in time, as if the 
former were to follow immediately upon the latter. 
After what seems clearly to be a prediction of the 
downfall of Jerusalem (Matthew xxiv. 1-29), we read 
that " immediately (evdtcog) after the tribulation of 
those days," the Son of Man will come in the clouds 
of heaven, in the sight of " all the tribes " on earth, 
and " gather together his elect from the four winds, 
from one end of heaven to the other " (vs. 29-32, 
comp. c. xxv. 31 seq. and Luke xxi. 27, 31). And we 
read (in ver. 34) : " this generation (ytvtd) shall not 
pass, till all these things be fulfilled." 

We are not called upon, in this place, to consider 
the difficulty that is presented by these passages. The 
paramount question of the origin and date of the 
Gospel is the question which we have in hand. That 
our Saviour did not predict that the world would come 
to an end instantly on the destruction of Jerusalem, is 
shown by other parts of his own teaching. He is 
represented in the synoptical Gospels as declaring that 
the time when the end would occur was not a subject 
of Revelation, but a secret of the Father. In a more 
comprehensive way, he said to the disciples (Acts i. 7) : 
" It is not for you to know the times or seasons, which 
the Father hath put in his own power." And the 
apostles, though hoping and looking for the end, did 
not claim in their Epistles to be taught by Inspiration 



MATTHEW. 171 

when the end would come. Moreover, there are 
various teachings of the Saviour in regard to His king- 
dom, which imply a slow progress and a long operation 
of the gospel in the world. It is like leaven. It is like a 
grain of mustard-seed. It is the salt of the earth. It 
is to be preached to all nations. He compares Himself, 
as to the moral effect of His death, to the corn of wheat 
which, if it do not fall into the earth and die, " abideth 
alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." 

We can afford, in the present discussion, to waive 
the inquiry how these predictions as they are set down 
in the first Gospel (and so substantially in Mark and 
Luke), are reconcilable with these other teachings of 
Christ and with historical fact. It is enough that 
skeptics, almost with one voice, have maintained that 
here is really a distinct prediction that the end of the 
world would occur in connection with the destruction 
of Jerusalem and within the lifetime of the generation 
then on the stage. Theodore Parker has expressed 
this view. Gibbon makes the supposed prediction a 
theme of his elaborate satire. Now, if this be their 
interpretation, they are compelled to acknowledge that 
the Gospel which contains this erroneous prophecy 
appeared in its present form before Jerusalem was 
captured by Titus, or before the year 70. It must 
have been written as early as thirty or forty years after 
the Saviour's death. No Gospel- writer would set forth 
without explanation a prediction of a mighty event, 
which all his readers would know had not been verified. 



172 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

No writer in the year 80, or 90, or 100, would fix 
the date of the end of the world at the destruction of Je- 
rusalem, in a document which he wished to be believed. 

We may even take a step farther. If some inter- 
pretations of the passages in Matthew be adopted, 
which recognize an infallible accuracy in the synoptical 
reports of the Saviour's teaching, yet it may be safely 
held that had the Evangelist been writing at a later 
time, some explanation would have been thrown in to 
remove the seeming discrepancy between prophecy and 
fulfilment. If it be supposed, for example, that in 
the perspective opened to the prophetic vision, two 
grand events, though parted in reality by a long 
interval, were brought together — as distant mountain- 
peaks when approached are found to be far apart — 
yet it would be natural to expect that when the 
interval had actually disclosed itself to the observer, 
some intimation of the fact would be dropped. So 
that even on the orthodox, as well as on the skeptical, 
interpretation of the eschatology in the Synoptics, 
their early date is manifest. 

It remains for us to notice the Tubingen hypo- 
thesis concerning Matthew. Baur's general theory is 
not the mythical theory, but "the tendency-theory." 
He has discussed and pointed out the weakness of the 
procedure of Strauss in his attempt to disprove the 
statements of the fourth Gospel by opposing to them 
the authority of the Synoptics, and at the same time 
to contradict the Synoptics by quoting the fourth 



MATTHEW. 173 

Gospel against them. If there is to be any positive 
construction of the evangelical history, as Baur per- 
ceived, there must be gained somewhere a firm stand- 
ing-place. This he finds in the first Gospel. Not 
that even this Gospel is fully authentic and historical. 
Yet there is in Matthew a substantial kernel of his- 
torical truth. All the Gospels are, more or less, the 
product of a theological tendency ; that is, they result 
from the artificial recasting and amplifying of the veri- 
table history in order to suit the views of some theo- 
logical party or interest in the primitive church. In 
Matthew, the Jewish- Christian side is the prevailing 
motive determining the cast and tone of the narrative. 
Luke represents the opposite, or Gentile, party. But 
the first Gospel is less inspired by a definite, dogmat- 
ical interest, which leads in the other Gospels to the 
conscious alteration and fabrication of history; and 
Baur is disposed to concede to Strauss that there is a 
larger admixture of the myth or the unconscious crea- 
tions of feeling in Matthew, than is true of the 
remaining Gospels. 

When we come to inquire for a precise explanation 
of the origin of the first Gospel, we are met with 
very divergent responses from the various choir-leaders 
of the Tubingen school. In fact, with respect to the 
whole of the special criticism by which they seek 
to convict the Gospels of being tendenz-schriften, they 
are hardly less at variance with each other than 
with the Christian world generally. Passages that 



174 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

are confidently quoted by one critic in proof of a 
certain " tendency/' are alleged by another as illustra- 
tions of a " tendency " exactly opposite. With regard 
to Matthew, Hilgenfeld, who agrees, in this particular, 
with Strauss, does not limit the sense of the logia of 
Papias so as to exclude narrative matter; yet he 
pretends to be able to dissect the first Gospel and to 
separate a primitive Matthew — an Ur-Matthaus — from 
later accretions. We are absolved from the necessity 
of following him in the baseless and arbitrary division 
which he seeks to run through the contents of Mat- 
thew, since his construction has gained so little ap- 
plause even from his master. But we may attend for 
a moment to Baur's own view. He appears to take 
the logia in the restricted meaning, and to attach some 
importance to the supposed tradition of a collection 
of logia, forming the basis of our Matthew. This 
hypothesis we have already examined. Baur's effort 
to bring down the date of the Gospel into the second 
century is a bad failure. Desirous of holding that 
the second advent is foretold as immediately subse- 
quent to the predicted destruction of Jerusalem, he is' 
obliged to refer the latter prediction to some other 
war than that of Titus. Accordingly, he interprets it 
as applying to the war of Hadrian in the year 131 or 
132, and therefore fixes the date of the composition of 
the Gospel between 130 and 134! It is unfortunate 
for this bold assertion, that our Matthew was an au- 
thoritative writing among Christians, and read as such 






MATTHEW. 175 

in their assemblies " in city and country/' in the time 
of Justin Martyr, who was born near the end of the 
first century. But aside from this historical testi- 
mony, which it is vain to attempt to invalidate, Baur's 
interpretation can be easily proved to be palpably 
false. In the destruction of Jerusalem foretold in 
Matthew (xxiv. 1-4) the temple was to be laid in 
ruins. This was accomplished by Titus, and not by 
Hadrian. With what face then can the prophecy be 
referred to the war of Hadrian ? It is doubtful, in- 
deed, whether, in this last war, there was even a des- 
truction of the city. The parallel passages in the 
other evangelists (see Luke xxi. 5-7, 12, 20), deter- 
mine the reference of the prediction to the war of 
Titus, beyond the possibility of doubt. Moreover, 
" this generation " was not to pass away before this 
event was to occur. Baur claims that this phrase — 
avTT] ytvtd — may cover a period as long as a century. 
But this claim is void of truth. The] phrase every- 
where in the New Testament signifies the average 
term of human life, and was held, according to the 
Greek usage, to be equivalent to a third of a century. 
Besides, explanatory expressions occur in the prophet- 
ic passages of Matthew, which define the meaning of 
the phrase in the way we have stated. 1 The diffi 
culty presented by these passages, we are firmly con- 
vinced, is not to be escaped by affixing another than 
the proper and uniform meaning to this phrase. 

1 See Matthew xvi. 27, 28. 



176 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

The forced and manifestly false interpretation of 
Baur, which has been noticed above, is clue to the 
straits into which he is brought by his untenable 
theory. Confronted by unimpeachable historical 
witnesses, he is not only obliged to ignore, or unjusti- 
fiably to disparage, their testimony, but also to resort 
to shifts in interpretation which only mark the des- 
peration of his cause. There is absolutely nothing to 
conflict with the supposition that our first Gospel 
comes down, in its integrity, from the apostolic 
Church ; while the positive evidence, both direct and 
corroborative, fully establishes the fact. 

MARK. 

The ancient testimonies, of which that of Papias is 
the first, to the genuineness and early date of the 
second Gospel, would seem to preclude the possibility 
of a question on these points. Mark is declared to 
have been an attendant of Peter and to have derived 
his knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus from 
the discourses of that apostle. This is substantially 
the declaration of all the writers in the second half 
of the second century • and it has been thought by 
some good critics that even as early as Justin Martyr, 
and in one passage of Justin himself, the Gospel of 
Mark was styled Peter's Gospel. 

But it has been contended of late that the descrip- 
tion of Papias does not answer for our Mark and 



MARK. 177 

must refer to some other work. In the later form of 
the theory, Papias is made to describe an earlier Mark 
— an Ur-MarJcus — which is the germ of our present 
Gospel. 

Now of the existence of this earlier work there is 
no intimation in any of the Fathers. How did the fact 
of its existence escape the knowledge of Irenaeus and 
his contemporaries ? When did all the manuscripts 
of it disappear? In truth, the theory in this form 
is preposterous, and even Baur is driven to a different 
hypothesis. Before attending to this, however, let us 
revert to the statements of Papias and see how far 
they are from lending support to the notion that he 
had in mind any other work than our Mark. 

Papias, or John the Presbyter, his informant, 
represents that Mark, though a careful and accurate 
writer, depended on the oral discourses of Peter for 
his knowledge and therefore did not dispose his 
matter — tv Tcc&tt — in the chronological order. This 
is all the evidence on which the theory of an earlier 
Mark is founded ! But, in any event, this remark is 
only the impression of an individual as to the charac- 
ter of the second Gospel. He doubtless compared 
Mark with the more consecutive narrative of Matthew. 
Moreover, it is plain that he had in mind the lack of 
completeness in Mark, which begins abruptly with 
the preaching of John. Por he afterwards explains 
that Mark wrote down "some things " — whatever he 

recollected ; though it is added that he left out noth- 
12 



178 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

ing that he heard. The necessary gaps and omissions 
constituted in part the want of order — rdgig — which 
he noticed in Mark. 1 The second Gospel did not 
seem to be a full, systematical digest — a ovvragcg — 
of the words and deeds of Christ, like Matthew, but 
had a more irregular, fragmentary structure. Not 
that Mark neglected arrangement altogether and 
simply pasted together the reports of Peter in the 
order in which he heard them. This is not at all 
implied; but only that he had not the means of 
exactly arranging and filling out his history. To call 
into existence another work, different from our Mark, 
on no other ground than this observation of Papias, is 
a folly of criticism. 

The Tubingen writers have set up the wholly 
unsupported assertion, that our Mark is the amplifica- 
tion of an earlier " Gospel of Peter ; " but, as might 
be expected, they have little agreement with each 
other in the forms which they give to their theory. 
Hilgenfeld is persuaded that Mark is the product of 
a recasting, in the Petrine interest and that of the 
Pom an Church, of the Gospel of Matthew. 2 Marvel- 
lous that this Petrine, Roman Catholic partisan should 

1 Meyer is plainly wrong in making the "some things*"— evia — 
cover only a portion of what Mark set down. The meaning is that 
only a part of the teachings and works of Christ find a place in his 
Gospel. The want of order, as we have said before, is predicated as 
much of the record of the u things done," as of the " things said." 

- Hilgenfeld' s Kanonische Evangelien, s. 148. 






MAKK. 179 

have left out of his work the passage : " Thou art 
Peter, and on this rock I build my church ! " Strange 
that he should have stricken out the passage which, 
above all others, was suited to his purpose ! Baur, 
seeing that the supposition of an earlier Gospel of 
Mark is incredible, on account of the absence of all 
traces of such a work and all allusions, to it, has 
invented a new hypothesis which is, if possible, more 
irrational than Hilgenfeld's. Papias has mixed up, 
we are told, things that have no connection — the 
existence of the Gospel of Mark, with which he was 
perhaps not even acquainted, and the legend of dis- 
courses which were thought to have been delivered 
by Peter on his missionary journeys. But of what 
weight is this naked conjecture in opposition to the 
distinct testimony of Papias? If a witness is to be 
set aside on so flimsy a pretext, there is an end of 
historical investigation. Besides, it is not Papias 
alone who testifies to the Gospel of Mark and the 
connection of Mark with Peter. Irenaeus, Clement, 
Eusebius, say the same ; and there is no reason to 
suppose that they simply reecho the statement of 
Papias. All these writers represent what was un- 
questionably the general belief at the time when 
Papias wrote. 

These assaults upon the integrity of the Gospel of 
Mark, by critics who do not stick to any one hypo- 
thesis as long as it takes the seasons to revolve, have 
not weakened in the slightest degree that argument in 



180 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

behalf of the Gospel on which the Church has rested 
from the apostolic age until now. Are historical 
testimonies to be blown away by the empty guess of 
a theorist ? 



LUKE. 

The school of Baur have been especially confident 
in asserting that Luke's Gospel was written to further 
a certain theological interest. It is a tendenz-schrift, 
they are sure, which emanates from the Pauline side, 
and represents the gospel history in a way to favor 
the Gentile claims and privileges. 

Now, every historian who is not a mere story- 
teller, writes from his own point of view. Every 
historian will disclose in the complexion of his work 
his own character and situation. Certain aspects of 
the subject which have for one writer a peculiar 
interest, are thrown by a writer of a different cast 
more into the background. The position and charac- 
ter of an historian affect his selection and disposition 
of the matter. But the question is whether he is 
betrayed into inveracity and perversion by the bent 
of his mind and his party connections. It is clear 
that Luke, a disciple of Paul and writing for a 
heathen convert, is more interested in the intention 
of the author of the gospel to provide salvation equally 
for the Gentiles. But is he thereby led to indulge in 
misstatement and invention? Does he omit import- 



LUKE. 181 

ant facts because they would clash with a view which 
he wishes to make out? And does he not scruple to 
fabricate incidents for the sake of helping forward a 
party interest ? This is charged by Baur — charged, 
as we believe, without proof, and falsely. There is no 
inconsistency between the representation of the life 
and teachings of Christ in Matthew, and that made 
in Luke. The design of Christianity to embrace the 
Gentiles, even to bring to them an advantage above 
the unbelieving nation to whom the gospel first 
comes, is abundantly attested in Matthew. What are 
the proofs by which Baur would sustain his impeach- 
ment of Luke ? They are, one and all, destitute of 
weight. Luke omits to mention the distinction put 
upon Peter when he was styled the Bock ; but so does 
Mark. It is charged that Luke contrives to disparage 
the twelve disciples, in order to pave the way for an 
inference to the honor of Paul. This is pure fancy, 
and has against it such passages as Luke xxii. 29, 30, 
where the Lord declares that a kingdom is appointed 
for this band of disciples, even as the Father had 
appointed for him ; and that they should " sit on 
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 
Hilgenfeld is acute enough to find in this promise 
a designed depression of the twelve, since they are to 
judge Israel alone! What, then, is the purport 
of the same promise in " judaizing " Matthew ? l 
That the kingdom is preached in Samaria, according 

1 Matt. xix. 25. 



182 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

to Luke, is also, if we are to believe Baur, a fiction 
designed as a typical prelude to Paul's free offer of 
salvation to the heathen, and to pacify objectors to this 
last procedure. Especially is the mission of the 
Seventy (Luke x. 10) discredited, and ascribed partly 
to the desire to diminish the consideration of the 
twelve, and partly to the wish to furnish a justifying 
parallel or preparation, in the manner just mentioned, 
for the Pauline liberality to the Gentiles and for the 
missions among them. But in sending out the 
Seventy, Christ did not organize them into a per- 
manent body. There is no trace of such a body of 
disciples in the Acts, as there certainly would be if 
they had been a permanent body, or if the narrative 
in Luke had been a doctrinal fiction. The Seventy 
were provisionally employed, in the course of this last 
journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, when He was desirous 
of making Himself more widely known to the people. 
The number was fixed at seventy, not because the 
Jews reckoned the languages of the world at seventy, 
which is Baur's explanation, but more likely in allu- 
sion to the seventy elders appointed by Moses, just as 
the twelve disciples corresponded with the number of 
tribes. Nor did the Seventy go to the heathen. It 
does not appear that they went to the Samaritans even ; 
and Luke himself records that by the Samaritans 
Jesus himself had been inhospitably received. 1 It 
has been properly suggested, in reply to Baur, that 

1 Luke ix. 51 seq. 



LUKE. 183 

were this incident a wilful fiction, it would be so 
contrived as to present a greater resemblance to the 
later apostolic history, than the occult, remote, far- 
fetched analogy which Baur imagines himself to 
discern. So slender are the principal grounds on 
which important portions of the third Gospel are pro- 
nounced a fabrication! They illustrate the morbid 
suspicion of these critics, and their slavish subjection 
to a preconceived, indefensible theory concerning the 
original character of Christianity. 

One of the most important topics connected with 
modern discussions relative to the origin of the third 
Gospel, is the relation of that Gospel to the Gospel of 
Marcion. In the genial portraiture which Neander 
has drawn of this noted heresiarch, it appears that the 
love and compassion of Christ had struck into his 
soul. Not discerning that this love and compassion 
presuppose and require the feelings of justice, he 
conceived that the representations of the character of 
God in the Old Testament are inconsistent with the 
image he had formed of Christ. Moreover, the apos- 
tles, with the exception of Paul, seemed to him to be 
entangled in Old Testament views and to have 
perverted the pure doctrine of Jesus. On the con- 
trary, the expressions in Paul about the Christian's 
emancipation from the law and about free grace, being 
imperfectly understood by Marcion, fell in with the 
current of his feeling. Hence, though starting from 



184 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

a practical and not a speculative point of view, he 
developed a gnostical theory, according to which the 
God of the Old Testament was a Demiurg. inferior 
to the Father of Jesus. He shaped his scriptural 
canon to suit his doctrinal belief. The Gospel of 
Luke, as written by a companion of Paul, and as 
bringing out the Pauline doctrine, he regarded with 
favor ; but, according to the unanimous testimony of 
the Fathers, he mutilated and abridged this Gospel 
in order to conform it to his own system. Similar 
liberties he took with the Pauline Epistles, which he 
also received. He may have fancied that the changes 
which he made in all these documents were a restora- 
tion of them to their original form. Yet there is no 
indication whatever that these changes were made on 
any other authority than his a-priori theory of what 
Christ and the apostles must have taught. 

A native of Pontus in Asia Minor, Marcion came 
to Rome about the year 140 — possibly ten years later. 
Hence, if the statement of Tertullian and the rest of 
the Fathers is correct, respecting the relation of his 
Gospel to that of Luke, he is a most important witness 
to the early and general reception of Luke's Gospel in 
its present form. It would seem to be well-nigh 
impossible to call in question this early testimony. It 
is true that Marcion did not succeed in removing from 
Luke all features not in keeping with his system. 
But this is only to say that he did not do his work 
with entire thoroughness and consistency. Irenaeus 



LUKE. 185 

and Tertullian and their contemporaries, be it ob- 
served, lived shortly after Marcion. Irenaeus had 
grown to be a young man before Marcion died. 
Tertullian had taken great pains to collect information 
concerning Marcion's career and system. But, inde- 
pendently of their testimony in itself considered, how 
can it be supposed that a Gospel which Marcion and 
the Marcionites alone received, was taken up by 
Catholic Christians, and enlarged and improved for 
their own use ? What possible motive could prompt 
them to appropriate to themselves this heretical, spu- 
rious Gospel, and add it to those which they knew to 
be authentic ? How did the churches drop out the 
work which Marcion used — supposed to be the real 
Luke — and substitute for it the new-fangled Gospel 
which was fabricated on the basis of it ? How is it 
that we have no notice of this exchange — no traces of 
a previous use of the curtailed Luke of Marcion, on 
the part of the churches? And such a procedure 
would bring down the date of the canonical Gospel to 
130 or 140! 

The first to dispute the received view as to Mar- 
cion's Gospel, was the founder of German rationalism, 
Semler. He suggested that our Luke and Marcion's 
Luke are different recensions, or editions, of the same 
work. Others after him assigned the priority to the 
Luke of Marcion. Opinion swayed from one side to 
the other on this question, until Baur strenuously 
contended that Marcion's Gospel is first and the 



186 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

canonical Luke was made on the basis of it. This 
hypothesis he defended at length in his work on the 
Canonical Gospels} But a careful comparison of the 
numerous passages of Marcion's Luke, which are 
found in the Fathers, made it impossible longer to 
dispute the priority of the canonical Gospel. And 
after the publication of the work of Volckmar on this 
subject, Baur himself retracted his previous hypothesis 
and came on to the same ground. In his work on 
Mark's Gospel, he says : " It is no longer to be denied, 
as I have become convinced by a repeated examination, 
that most of the variations between Marcion's Gospel 
and our own are, with a prevailing likelihood, to be 
regarded as arbitrary alterations in the interest of a 
given system." The priority of our Luke is now an 
established, uncontradicted fact. See how much this 
fact involves ! Marcion took an accepted, generally 
received Gospel, and applied to it his pruning-knife. 
Our Luke, then, was most certainly an authoritative 
document in the churches early in the second century. 
But a more valuable deduction may be made with 
entire confidence. Marcion selected a work which he 
regarded, and others regarded, as the composition of a 
disciple of Paul, and deriving its authority and value 
from this circumstance. We may safely infer that our 
Gospel was generally considered at the beginning of 
the second century, or about thirty years after we sup- 
pose it to have been written, to be the work of an 

1 Baur's Kanonische Evangelien, s. 393 seq. (1847). 



LUKE. 187 

earlier writer, an associate of the apostles. As con- 
cerns the argument from tradition for the genuineness 
and early date of Luke, we could ask for nothing 
more. 

Baur's whole theory concerning Luke was, in 
reality, shattered by the demolition of the false and 
most improbable hypothesis of a priority of Marcion's 
Gospel. Yet, in his later works, he does not wholly 
abandon his erroneous construction. The canonical 
Luke, he still holds, was originally composed by a 
strictly Pauline and anti-Petrine Christian. Various 
passages which are plainly and palpably irreconcilable 
with such a theory, he declares to be interpolated by a 
subsequent writer whose position is "mediatory," or 
half-way between the two parties, into which Baur 
falsely supposes the early Church to have been split. 
For this theory of a later editor, there is not an iota of 
historical evidence. It is, like so many other hypothe- 
ses, spun out of the bowels of the critic. The dissec- 
tion of the Gospel, which is attempted, is from begin- 
ning to end a purely arbitrary proceeding, and has no 
better foundation than had the mutilation attempted 
by Marcion. To illustrate the groundless and arbi- 
trary character of Baur's criticism of Luke, we bring 
forward a single instance. In Luke xvi. 16, there is 
recorded the saying of the Saviour : " It is easier for 
heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to 
fail." In place of "the law" — rov vojuov — there 
was found in Marcion's Gospel — rcov Xoycov juov — 



188 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

"my words." The existence of this declaration in 
Luke concerning the perpetuity of the law, is at war 
with Baur's idea of the anti- Jewish character of the 
Gospel. It is one of the clearest proofs of the un- 
founded nature of his theory. Hence, he puts forward 
the assertion that Marcion has the true reading. For 
the reading of Marcion there is no manuscript support 
whatever. It comports, moreover, with the character 
of all the rest of his alterations. He aims to erase 
whatever gives a sanction to the Old Testament law. 
Yet we are expected to accept the wholly unsupported 
and groundless doctrine of that oracular personage 
styled Die Kritik, who reverses his own decision with 
every new moon ! 

Much of the mistaken and mischievous speculation 
adverse to the genuineness of the third Gospel, has 
sprung from Schleiermacher's hypothesis of the com- 
posite character of this Gospel and of the Acts. He 
proposed the theory that the Gospel of Luke is a series 
of earlier documents linked together, the task of Luke 
being merely that of a compiler. This view was 
ingeniously advocated. A similar hypothesis was held 
concerning the Acts, the second work of the same 
author. But this hypothesis, both in respect to the 
Gospel and the Acts, has been proved to be un- 
founded. Whatever written materials were in the 
hands of Luke, neither of his works is a mere com- 
pilation. Each of them has a coherent outline, and is 
pervaded by qualities of style peculiar to the evange- 



LUKE. 189 

list. One of the ablest refutations of the Schleier- 
macherian theory is contained in the work of Leke- 
busch upon the Acts. The prologue of Luke's 
Gospel evinces the error of that theory. Luke avows 
his intention to prepare an orderly, a systematic and 
connected, narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus. 
And the impression made by the prologue that he 
designs to fuse his materials into a regular composi- 
tion, is sustained by an inspection of the contents of 
the work. 

This prologue of Luke's Gospel is chiefly valuable 
as a testimony to its genuineness and credibility. As 
such, it well deserves examination. Many before him 
had written accounts, more or less full, of the life and 
ministry of Jesus. He has carefully followed down 
the course of the Saviour's history from the beginning 
— for this is the meaning of the passage rendered : 
" having had perfect understanding of all things from 
the very first." But how did he, and " the many " to 
whom he refers, ascertain the facts " most surely 
believed among us ? " He answers that " they 
delivered them unto us — Tiaqthoaav fjiuv — which 
from the beginning " of the Saviour's career " were 
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Two things 
are here affirmed : first, that Luke's knowledge came 
from the apostles and other immediate disciples of 
Christ; and, secondly, that it came to him directly 
from them, without the intervention of third persons. 



190 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

This last is implied in the phrase " delivered to us " 
— TTaQtdooav r\[Mv — as may be seen by an exami- 
nation of other passages where the same phrase 
occurs ; as, for example, 1 Cor. xi. 23. The inform- 
ants of Luke were eyewitnesses of the history which 
he undertakes to record. He was contemporary w T ith 
them. The early date of his work is verified by his 
own distinct statement. 

THE RELATION OF THE APOCRYPHAL TO THE CANONI- 
CAL GOSPELS. 

The fact of the existence of apocryphal Gospels has 
given occasion, among those who have not studied the 
subject, to erroneous impressions. It has been sup- 
posed by some that a considerable number of Gospels, 
besides the four of the canon, were in the hands of 
the early Church, and that, for reasons which may not 
have been fully sufficient, these last were selected, and 
clothed with authority. This belief, or conjecture, is 
unfounded, as we shall soon point out. And a careful 
attention to the subject of the apocryphal Gospels has 
the effect to set forth in a clearer light the antiquity 
and authority of the received Gospels. A few remarks 
will bring before the reader the more important con- 
siderations. 1 

1 The old and standard work on the subject of the apocryphal 
literature is that of Fabricius. " A New and Full Method of Settling 
the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, etc.," by Rev. J. 
Jones (Oxford, 1798), is Fabricius with English translations. The 



LUKE. 191 

1. None of the works now extant under the name 
of apocryphal Gospels, have any claim to be consid- 
ered authentic histories of Christ, or to be regarded, 
in the remotest degree, as rivals or competitors of the 
canonical Gospels. 

It is the fashion of writers like Strauss to quote 
from these apocryphal Gospels as well as from the 
Gospels of the canon, for the sake of creating an im- 
pression that both belong to the same category, which 
no person pretending to be a scholar would venture to 
assert. The apocryphal Gospels are at a world-wide 
remove from the canonical Gospels, in the character 
of their contents. They relate almost exclusively to 
the nativity and infancy of Jesus and the glories of 
his mother, or to circumstances attending and follow- 
ing his death. They are chiefly made up of silly 
tales, which are too plainly fabulous to merit any 
attention. Nor have they any title to attention on 

remarks and deductions of Jones are sometimes good, but often ill- 
judged. Thilo began to edit the apocryphal Gospels in a most 
scholarly manner, but only published a first volume. Tischendorf, 
besides his critical edition of the Euuigelia Apocrypha (1853), has 
discussed the bearing of the apocryphal Gospels upon the question 
of the genuineness and credibility of the Gospels of the canon, in his 
prize essay de Emngeliorum apoc. origine et usu (1851), and in 
his recent dissertation, Wann wurden die Evangelien xerfasst 
(1865). JSTorton's chapter {Genuineness of the Gospels, Yol. iii. ch. 
xii.) is lucid and instructive. He goes farther than most scholars 
would approve, in discrediting the existence of apocryphal books 
which ecclesiastical writers mention by their titles. But his skep- 
ticism in this particular is a healthy antidote to extravagances in the 
opposite direction. 



192 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

the score of age. All of them are demonstrably later 
than our Gospels. Most of them are even centuries 
later. It is supposed by Teschendorf that three of 
these are alluded to by early Fathers, but of this we 
cannot be certain. Justin Martyr twice mentions the 
Acts (axTa) of Pilate, as a document where could 
be found an attestation of the Saviour's history. 
Tertullian has a similar reference. A book called Gesta 
Pilatiy or Acts of Pilate, forms a part of the so-called 
Gospel of Nicodemus. But the Acts of a Roman 
governor — such a work as Justin designates — was his 
official Report to the Emperor, which was deposited 
in the archives at Rome. Whether in the time of 
Justin there was any published narrative of that sort, 
purporting to be Pilate's report of the judicial pro- 
ceeding in the case of Jesus, we are unable to say. 1 
But the Gesta Pilati which we possess is a narrative 
of Christ's life on the basis of our Gospels, which it is 
pretended that Nicodemus wrote and the Emperor 
Theodosius (which Emperor of that name, we are not 
told) found among the public records in the hall 
of Pontius Pilate, at Jerusalem. This Gospel of 
Nicodemus is unquestionably a composite work, and 
the part embraced in the Acta Pilati may be, as 
Tischendorf thinks, as old as Justin. Yet there has 

1 Perhaps Justin refers to no writing which he had seen, but to 
a public document which he supposes to exist. In the same way 
(Apol., I. 35) he says : " As you may learn from the lists of the 
taxing, which were made in the time of Cyrenius, the first governor 
of yours in Judea." 






LUKE. 193 

been confessedly great license in altering the text ; and 
after all, the opinion of Norton that this production 
is of a later date, is not conclusively disproved. Ori- 
gen, in the first half of the third century, once refers 
to a book of James, as containing the statement that 
the brothers of Jesus were children of Joseph by a 
former marriage ; and the apocryphal Protevangelion 
of James contains a similar statement. But there is 
no other allusion to such a work until near the end 
of the fourth century. The work now extant is a silly 
legend concerning the birth of Mary and the birth of 
Jesus, and is thought by Norton to be of much later 
date than the likewise unimportant book which Origen 
casually notices, and to which he attributes no au- 
thority. Tischendorf, however, is convinced that some 
traces of an acquaintance with the Protevangelion are 
found in Justin and in Clement of Alexandria, and 
that the manuscripts now extant substantially corres- 
pond to the work which was in their hands. But the 
first of these points must still be considered doubtful* 
and the conclusion of Tischendorf as to the antiquity 
of the work is therefore equally uncertain. Origen, 
also, alludes to a spurious Gospel of Thomas. A 
passage in Irenaeus is thought to indicate that it was 
in use among the heretical Marcosii, and Hippolytus 
states that a Gospel of Thomas was received by the 
Naaseni. 1 An apocryphal work professing to emanate 

1 Iren. Adv. Raer., Lib. i. c. 20 ; Hippol. (Duncker and Schneid. 
Ed.) pp. 140, 142. 
13 



194 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

from Thomas, is now extant (though in very divergent 
forms), of which the work alluded to by Origen mav 
have served as the basis. It is composed of fabulous 
tales of the boyhood of Jesus. But Norton even 
doubts whether the Gospel of Thomas, which is 
mentioned by Origen, was a narrative. He thinks 
that, like other spurious works bearing the name 
of Gospel, it may have been a doctrinal homily. 

Tischendorf is of the opinion that the Acta and 
the Protevangelion were composed somewhere in the 
first decades of the second century. Prom the evident 
dependence of these works on the Gospels of the 
canon, he infers that the latter were in general use 
at an earlier day. This conclusion stands or falls, 
according to the judgment which is formed as to the 
correctness of the date assigned to the Acta and 
the 'Frotevangelion} At all events, these and the 
other apocryphal Gospels now extant show what 
sort of works would have been produced, had the 
canonical writers followed their own fancy and inven- 
tion. In this aspect, the apocryphal Gospels afford 
an impressive confirmation of the verity of the canon- 
ical histories. The sobriety and simplicity of the 
latter, together with their distinct statement that no 
miracles were performed by Jesus prior to his baptism, 
are in wonderful contrast with the fanciful and fan- 

1 Tischendorf supposes that, the Descensus Christi ad inferos 
in the Evangeleum Nicodemi is also as old as the middle of the 
second century. 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 195 

tastic complexion of the spurious Gospels. The 
clumsiness of the counterfeit sets off the perfection 
of the original. 

2. The apocryphal Gospels which are mentioned 
by the early Fathers, and most if not all of which 
have perished, had only a local circulation, had no 
authority save with minor heretical parties, and had 
no effect on that generally prevailing conception of the 
life and teaching of Christ, which was founded ex- 
clusively on the four authentic and canonical narra- 
tives unanimously received by the early Church. 

We must explain that we do not include in this 
statement the Gospel of the Hebrews and Marcion's 
Gospel, for the reason that both of these works were 
produced by the alteration of canonical Gospels. The 
Gospel of the Hebrews existed in many varying forms, 
and under different titles. The Gospel of the Twelve 
Apostles, for example, and other books the titles of 
wmich have come down to us, were different editions 
of the Gospel of the Hebrews. This work, as we 
have said, was our Matthew altered. 1 The Gospel 

1 That the Gospel of the Hebrews was never put by the church 
and church writers on a level with the canonical Gospels, has been 
fully proved. See, for example, the Article of Franck (Stud. u. Krit., 
1848, 2), to which we have before referred. As to the use of it by 
Hegesippus, Eusebius merely says that he brought forward some 
things from the Gospel of the Hebrews, as he did from unwritten 
Hebrew traditions. Origen and Jerome were too intelligent to rank 
it with the canonical Gospels. Eusebius places ifc among the 
Antilegomena, it being the Gospel used by the Hebrew Christians. 
Euseb., III. 25. 



196 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

of Marcion was our Luke abridged and otherwise 
changed. 

The truth which we wish to convey is, that there 
were no Gospel histories in the second century which 
were contending for acceptance by the side of the 
Four; none which had come into general use and 
were discarded; none having any claims to be au- 
thentic, which required to be seriously weighed. As 
far as we can ascertain, there were no other Gospels 
which had a consideration sufficient to render them 
candidates for public favor in the Church. It should 
be remarked that the first attempts at evangelical 
writing which Luke mentions in his preface, were 
early supplanted by the canonical histories, so that 
none of the former, as far as we can discover, were 
known to the ecclesiastical writers of the second 
century. 

The Gnostics were the falsifiers and fabricators of 
Scripture, according to the statement of the Fathers. 
In the controversy of Irenaeus and Tertullian with the 
Gnostics, both sides take for granted a life and 
teaching of Christ, which, with wholly insignificant 
exceptions, is identical with the representation of our 
canonical Gospels. He is assumed to have done and 
said just what they record. The leading sects of 
the Gnostics were therefore governed in their con- 
ception of the career and ministry of Christ, by the 
authority and the representations of the canonical 
histories. 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 197 

Tertullian, who has so much to say of the falsifi- 
cation of Luke by Marcion and of his rejection of the 
rest of the Gospels on dogmatic grounds, does not 
mention any apocryphal Gospels as in use among the 
Valentinians, the principal gnostical sect, and the 
rest of his opponents. In one place only, Irenaeus 
speaks of a gospel as used by the Valentinians, bear- 
ing the title of the True Gospel or the Gospel of Truth. 
We know not whether this was narrative or homily. 
We know not whether Irenaeus had ever seen the 
work. We know not whether it really existed, or 
whether Irenaeus did not mistake the claim on their 
part to be possessed of the true Gospel, or the true 
interpretation of the Gospel, for an allusion to a book. 
But of this we are certain, that he, and, as far as we 
know, they, brought forward no passage from it. The 
Gospel of Basilides is another work which, if indeed 
such a work existed, was probably not a narrative. 
[t was little known ; and not a sentence from it is 
quoted by the ancient writers. Origen says that 
Basilides wrote a Gospel and prefixed his own name 
to it ; a statement which is repeated by Ambrose and 
Jerome. But the refutations of Basilides ta^e notice 
of nothing drawn from such a work. He is said by 
Eusebius (quoting from Agrippa Castor) to have 
written a work in twenty-four books " upon the Gos- 
pel " — apparently an exegetical work ; and this fact 
may not improbably have given rise to the supposi- 
tion that he had fabricated a new Gospel. 



198 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

In order to show how obscure, comparatively, 
these apocryphal Gospels were, and how far the 
existence of them is from weakening, in the least 
degree, the evidence for the antiquity and verity of 
the canonical four, we will state all that is known 
concerning the two most prominent of these fictions 
— the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of the Egyp- 
tians. 

The Gospel of Peter has been made to figure 
conspicuously in the manifold hypotheses of the skepti- 
cal school of critics. It is instructive to see just how 
much is known concerning this work, which, from the 
ado made about it by the critics in question, one 
would infer to be a document of great notoriety and 
importance in the early Church. It has been said that 
Justin Martyr, in a passage of his Dialogue with 
Trypho, makes reference to a Gospel of Peter ; but 
this is a mistake. 1 The first notice of the Gospel of 
Peter is from Serapion, near the end of the second 
century. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, had, as we 
learn from Eusebius, found that some disturbance 



1 The passage is in Tryph., c. 106. See Otto's excellent note, 
(Otto's Ed. of Justin, Yol. II. p. 361), There may be an omission 
of dnooTokav before avrov, as Otto supposes ; or the alrov may 
refer to Christ ; or, again, the allusion may be to Mark, which was 
known as Peter's Gospel. We think that the context (see c. 105) 
renders it in the highest degree probable (as Otto thinks) that 
Justin, according to his usual custom, refers in this place to the 
aivoyivrjyLovevyiara collectively and in the plural — that is, to our four 
Gospels. 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 199 

# 

had been created in the church at Rhosse, a town in 
Cilicia, by a so-called Gospel of Peter which was in 
the hands of some of the church-members. At first, 
thinking that the book was harmless, he deemed the 
affair undeserving of notice. But afterwards he pro- 
cured a copy of the book from some of the Docetae, 
who used it, and found it to contain objectionable 
matter. Origen has a single allusion to this Gospel, 
as containing, like the book of James, the statement 
that the brothers of Jesus were children of Joseph 
by a former marriage. It is afterwards barely men- 
tioned, as an apocryphal book, by Jerome. This is 
all that we know of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter ! 
It is not clear that Origen had ever seen it. The 
bishop of what was then the principal See in the East 
had never heard of the book until he met with it at 
Rhosse; and when he wished to examine it, he was 
obliged to borrow a copy of some heretical Docetae 
by whom it was used ! Moreover, there is nothing 
to show that it was a narrative. The way in which 
Serapion speaks of it would rather suggest the infer- 
ence that its contents were of a doctrinal nature. 
Eusebius reckons it among the evidently spurious 
works " which were never esteemed valuable enough 
to be cited by any ecclesiastical writer." 1 

The Gospel of the Egyptians is first mentioned 
by Clement of Alexandria near the end of the second 
century. He quotes from it a fabulous conversation 

1 Euseb., III. 25. 



200 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

of Jesus with Salome. He expressly characterizes 
the book as apocryphal. A passage similar to that 
quoted by Clement of Alexandria is found in the 
spurious fragment entitled the Second Epistle of 
Clement (of Home) to the Corinthians, which was 
not written earlier than the time of Clement of 
Alexandria; and it is possible that the forger of the 
last work was acquainted with this fictitious Gospel. 
It is enumerated by Origen and Jerome among the 
titles of apocryphal Gospels, which they furnish. 
Epiphanius says that the Sabellians made use of it ; 
but his statement needs confirmation. So much, 
and so much only, is known of the Gospel of the 
Egyptians. Some have considered it one form of the 
Gospel of the Hebrews. Others, including Norton, 
have held it to be, not a narrative, but a doctrinal 
work. It was written in an obscure and mystical 
vein, and probably presented the ascetic notions of 
Egyptian gnostical sectaries, among whom it origi- 
nated. It must have had a limited circulation. No 
Christian writer has ever attributed to it any historical 
authority. 

We might proceed to notice other spurious gos- 
pels, or books called by the name of gospels, which 
are the subject of casual allusion in ecclesiastical 
writers of the first centuries. But we have said 
enough to give our readers a fair impression of their 
insignificant importance. Reminding the reader of 
what we have said of the Gospel of the Hebrews, 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 201 

which was framed on the basis of our Matthew, we 
may distinctly affirm, not only that the four Gospels 
of the canon were universally accepted by the Chris- 
tians of the second century, but also that no other 
gospel narratives can properly be said to have divided 
their honors with them. It may be affirmed, with 
hardly any qualification, that they stood without 
competitors. The spurious gospels secured little or 
no recognition outside of heretical parties or coteries 
from which they emanated. On the contrary, if not 
wholly unknown, they were rejected by the church 
teachers everywhere, and by the great body of Chris- 
tian people. 1 

It has been already remarked that the principal 
anti-gnostical writers of the second century, and their 
adversaries, alike proceed on a conception of the life 
and ministry of Jesus, which is identical with that 
of the canonical Gospels. That is to say, both parties 
assume that the history of Christ which we find in 
our Gospels, is alone authentic. A like confirmation 
of the authority of the canonical Gospels is ob- 
tained from Justin Martyr. They were undeniably 
the Gospels to which he refers as being authoritative — ■ 
the writings of the Apostles and their Companions. 

1 For an enumeration of these apocryphal writings, see Do 
Wette's EinJ. in d. j\ r . Testament, § 73 a ; also Hofmann's Art. — 
Psendepigraphen, etc. — in Herzog's Real-Encyc. This last Article, 
however, refers to the real and supposed allusions in the ecclesiastical 
writers to the nncanonical gospels ; and the references require much 
sifting. 



202 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

But, apart from this, in the multitude of Justin's 
allusions to the life and teachings of Christ, there are 
only six which cannot be at once traced to the Gospels 
of the canon. Among these there is only one, or at 
most two, sayings of Christ. Both of these are found, 
also, in Clement of Alexandria, who regards the four 
Gospels alone as authoritative. The other four cases 
of deviation from our Gospels in Justin, are of trivial 
consequence — slight details added to the canonical 
narrative. With these unimportant exceptions, the 
whole representation of, the history of Jesus in this 
Father, coincides with that of the accepted evange- 
lists. 1 Now Justin lived through the half century 
that followed the death of John. He had travelled 
extensively. He was held in honor by his contem- 
poraries and successors. He gives proof, therefore, 
that the prevailing conception of the life and teachings 
of Christ in his time, was identical with that of the 
canonical historians, and was derived from them. 
There was only one tradition in the Church from the 
beginning. 

We subjoin brief remarks on the probable mode 
in which the earliest records of the life of Jesus 
originated. Jesus himself wrote nothing. He acted 
with quickening and renovating power upon the 
world's life. But for Him to become an author would 

1 Semisch, DenTcwurdigkeiten des Justin, s. 344. The statement 
of Semisch we have verified by a careful and repeated perusal of 
Justin's writings. 



ORIGIN OE THE GOSPEL RECORDS. 203 

violate a subtle feeling of propriety of which all of us 
are sensible. At first, the fresh recollections of the 
men and women who had known him, especially of 
the disciples who had composed, as it were, his family, 
were the unwritten book which all, who desired, 
could consult. But in that age, and when the 
gospel soon found numerous adherents among 
Greeks, both foreign Jews and heathen, it was 
impossible that the teachings of Christ and the events 
of his life should long remain unrecorded. At the 
outset, it is probable that isolated memoranda were 
made of particular events or discourses. These 
rudimental records first came into 'being in Galilee 
and about Capernaum. In this way, a cluster of 
traditions would easily come to exist. Then, and 
before long, followed the combination of them, and 
the earliest efforts at framing a connected history. 
Such were the essays which Luke notices in his 
prologue. At length, within thirty or forty years of 
the death of Christ, there were efforts at more regular 
composition, of which the works of Luke are the 
maturest specimen. The first three Gospels present 
indubitable traces of such an origin as we have indi- 
cated. We are not to look for chronological precision 
in narratives thus constructed. We are not to look for 
light on all parts and points of the Saviour's earthly 
life. The Gospel of John, an original composition, 
emanating from the mind and heart of the loved 
disciple, is the document to be first consulted in the 



204 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 

scientific construction of the Saviour's history. The 
four together enable us to gain a knowledge of Jesus, 
not so full as we crave, yet sufficient for every practi- 
cal need. 



ESSAY IV. 

BATTR ON PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH AND 
THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OE ACTS. 1 

The great question which the Church in the 
apostolic age was required to consider and determine, 
was the relation of Christianity to the ritual law of the 
Old Testament. Was that law still binding? Or 
rather — for in this form, as was natural, the question 
first came up — was that law binding on the Gentile 
believers ? In short, could a man be a Christian with- 
out first becoming a Jew ? It cannot be denied that 
the full extent of the commotion which this question 
stirred up, is better understood in the light of recent 
discussions than was the case formerly. Discounting 
very much, as we shall, from the extravagant repre- 
sentation of the Tubingen critical school, we still feel 
that the sound of this great conflict reverberates 
through no inconsiderable portion of the New Testa- 
ment Scriptures. The Epistle to the Galatians is a 

1 Das Christenthum u. die ChristUche Kivche der drei ersten 
Yahrhunderte, von Dr. Ferdinand Christian Baur. Tubingen, 1853. 
(Author's last Ed., 1860.) 

Die Composition u. Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte, von Eduard 
Lekebusch. Gotha, 1854. 



206 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

fervid argument on this one theme. The Epistle to 
the Romans, though not devoted — the opinion of Baur 
to the contrary notwithstanding — to this distinctive 
subject, gives to the matter of the relation of the Jew 
to the Gentile, a prominent place. The two Epistles 
to the Corinthians bear witness to the dissension which 
the same question had provoked. The Epistle to the 
Hebrews is an argument designed to reconcile the 
Jewish believer to the abrogation of the old ordinances, 
and to keep him from lapsing, out of love to them, 
from the faith in Christ. The book of Acts, and most 
of the other monuments of the apostolic age, contain 
more or less of allusion to the grand question we have 
described. 

Eor it was a grand question. It was not simply 
the question — which of itself to a Jew could not fail 
to have the deepest interest — of the transitory or per- 
petual validity of the Mosaic laws and institutions. 
But it was, also, the question whether Christianity was, 
in its real nature, a spiritual, and so a universal, religion, 
or only an improved sect or phase of Judaism. In this 
transitional era, when the kingdom of God was break- 
ing through and casting off its rudimental and provis- 
ional form, and assuming the permanent features of a 
religion of the spirit and a religion for mankind — in 
that crisis of history, it was inevitable that such com- 
motion and controversy should arise. It was one 
illustration of the truth that the Son of Man did not 
come to bring peace, but a sword. As new chemical 



baur's theory. 207 

changes and combinations are attended with heat and 
combustion, so is it with every such revolution and 
new beginning in the course of history. And we may 
add that even to the present day, the Protestant defini- 
tions of the essential nature of the gospel and of the 
method of salvation, are sought especially in those fer- 
vent declarations against bondage to rites and cere- 
monies, and in favor of the sufficiency of Christ, which 
were elicited from the Apostle Paul in the progress of 
this momentous controversy. 

The history of this controversy, and of the ques- 
tion and parties involved in it, has lately acquired a 
new importance, from the place which it is made to fill 
in the historical theory of Baur and his school. Strauss, 
in his Life of Christ, had said little of the book of 
Acts, and that little of not much weight. This book 
remained a bulwark of faith for any who were disturbed 
by the skeptical criticism to which the evangelical 
histories had been subjected. Here, at least, was the 
testimony of a contemporary of the apostles, and a 
companion of one of them, which established the fact 
of a miraculous dispensation, and afforded proof of 
the prior miracles of the gospel. But things could 
not be left by the Tubingen critics in this unsatisfac- 
tory state. The book of Acts was next made the 
object of attack ; and, what we have now specially to 
observe, this attack was a part of a systematic theory, 
by which the origin of catholic Christianity, or of 
Christianity in the form we have it, and of the larger 



208 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH 

part of the canonical writings of the New Testament, 
is explained in a naturalistic way, through a peculiar 
view of the character of the conflict to which we have 
adverted, and of the consequences to which it led. 
This attempted reconstruction of the history of the 
apostolic age, on account of the extraordinary learning 
and ability with which it has been defended, especially 
by Baur ; on account, also, of the light which it inci- 
dentally throws on the condition of the apostolic 
church ; and, above all, on account of that increased 
confidence in the strength of the Christian cause which 
the failure of this assault upon it is fitted to inspire, 
deserves a fair examination. 

Before engaging in this task, it may be well to say 
a word in answer to an inquiry that is likely to occur 
to the mind of a reader not conversant with the early 
history of the Church. How, it may naturally be 
asked, can such a theory as that of the modern Tubin- 
gen school, denying as it does the accepted views 
respecting the origin of most of the canonical books 
of the New Testament, have even a show of plausibil- 
ity ? How can it keep the field for a moment in the 
face of the testimony of the early Church? Such 
theories are possible, we reply, for the reason that so 
scanty and fragmentary remains of literature have come 
down to us from the period immediately following the 
apostolic age. After the death of the leading apostles 
and the destruction of Jerusalem, there succeeds an 
interval which may be properly styled a saecalum 



baur's theory. 209 

obscuram. We have the writings of John which 
appeared in the latter part of the first century. Then 
we have the apostolic Fathers. But these writings are 
not of a nature to satisfy many of the most important 
inquiries in regard to the state of the Church. The 
early Greek Apologists, if we possessed them intact, 
would be invaluable ; but the first copious works ema- 
nating from this class of writers are the treatises of 
Justin Martyr, whose earliest extant production falls 
into the second quarter of the second century. Pre- 
cious, from a historical point of view, as these works of 
Justin are, they consist of Apologies to the Pagan and 
to the Jew, and leave unnoticed many points on which 
light might have been thrown, had their author been 
writing, for example, on some subject of doctrinal 
theology. In brief, so far as this very interesting era 
is concerned, we have peculiar occasion to lament — to 
borrow the language of Grote when speaking of Greek 
literature in general — that " we possess only what has 
drifted ashore from the wreck of a stranded vessel." 1 
We do not mean that the internal evidence of the New 
Testament documents, the numerous items of proof 
gathered from relics of the literature of the next 
period, and the testimony of the great writers of the 
second half of the second century, are insufficient. 
They do constitute a body of evidence which effectually 
refutes the main positions of the Tubingen school. 



1 G-rote's Preface to the History of Greece. 
14 



210 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

But for the reasons we have stated, there is room for 
the essays of conjectural criticism. A picture of the 
state of things in the early Church may be drawn, a 
theory ingeniously framed, whose inconsistency with 
the truth is not, at the first blush, so patent as to pre- 
clude the need of a careful refutation. Not until such 
a theory is thoroughly probed and compared with 
the multiform evidence pertaining to the subject, is it 
clearly seen to be untenable. 

The following are the essential points in Baur's 
theory. 1 The doctrine of Christ was, in principle, an 
abolishment of the Old Testament ritual and of the 
distinction, as to religious rights and privileges, be- 
tween the Jew and the Gentile. But the original dis- 
ciples did not advance to the conclusion which lay 
impliedly in the religious ideas of the Master. On the 
contrary, they persisted to the end in the traditional 
persuasion that the way of salvation was through 
Judaism; that the Gentile must enter the Church by 
that door, and that the uncircumcised had no part in 
the Messiah's kingdom. The Apostle Paul alone was 

1 We have drawn our representations of the Tubingen views 
chiefly from the work of Baur, the title of which is given at the begin- 
ning of this Essay. This work is the final, condensed presentation of his 
theory relative to the origin and early history of Christianity. The 
work of Lekebusch (the title of which is also given above) is the 
ablest refutation, with which we are acquainted, of Baur's theory in 
its bearing on the Acts of the Apostles. In this branch of the dis- 
cussion, especially, we have frequently availed ourselves of his sug- 
gestions. 



BATJR'S THEORY. 211 

so enlightened as to perceive that the old rites were 
abrogated by the nature of the new religion, and that 
the Gentile stood on an equality with the Jew, faith 
being the sole requirement. Nay, he held that cir- 
cumcision and the ritual were no longer admissible, 
since they implied some other object of reliance than 
Christ, some other condition of salvation besides faith. 
Hence, there was a radical difference in doctrine 
between Peter and the Jerusalem Christians on the one 
hand, and Paul and his followers on the other, which 
led to a personal disagreement and estrangement 
between these two apostolic leaders. There grew up 
two antagonistic types of Christianity, two divisions of 
the Church, separate and unfriendly to each other. 
Such was the state of things at the end of the apos- 
tolic age. Then followed attempts to reconcile the 
difference and to bridge the gulf that separated Gentile 
from Jewish, Pauline from Petrine Christianity. To 
this end, various irenical and compromising books were 
written in the name of the apostles and their helpers. 
The only Epistles of Paul which are counted as genuine 
are that to the Romans, that to the Galatians, and the 
two Epistles to the Corinthians. But the most impor- 
tant monument of this pacifying effort is the book of 
Acts, written in the earlier part of the second century 
by a Pauline Christian who, by making Paul some- 
thing of a Judaizer and then representing Peter as 
agreeing with him in the recognition of the rights of 
the Gentiles, hoped, not in vain, to produce a mutual 



212 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

friendliness between the respective partisans of the 
rival apostles. The Acts is a fiction founded on facts, 
and written for a specific doctrinal purpose. The nar- 
rative of the council or conference of the apostles, for 
example (Acts xv.), is pronounced a pure invention of 
the writer, and such a representation of the con- 
dition of things as is inconsistent with Paul's own 
statements, and, for this and other reasons, plainly 
false. The same ground is taken in respect to the 
conversion of Cornelius and the vision of Peter attend- 
ing it. 

Before we directly examine these views, . let us 
observe the main facts in the history of the reception 
of the Gentiles into the Church, assuming, for the 
present, that the documents are trustworthy. We 
shall show hereafter, especially in regard to the Acts, 
that the impeachment of their genuineness and credi- 
bility cannot be sustained. 

Without doubt, Christ himself observed, during 
his life, the ceremonial law. 1 Until that law should be 
supplanted by his finished work — by the act of God 
who gave it — he considered it obligatory. As a faith- 
ful servant, he came under the law. He rejected, 
indeed, the traditions of the elders, the ascetic, super- 
stitious practices which the Pharisees had appended to 
the Old Testament legislation. So he signified the 

1 On the position of Christ in reference to the law, we have little 
difference with Baur. Baur's observations on this topic are marked 



baur's theory. 213 

authority that belonged to him to modify the law by 
fulfilling it, or carrying it forward to a form answering 
fully to the idea underlying it — as when he declared 
himself the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark ii. 28) } It 
is true, however, that complying with the ritual him- 
self, he also bade others comply with it, even with its 
minute provisions. At the same time, both by impli- 
cation and explicitly, he authorized the conclusion that 
in the new era which he was introducing, the cere- 
monies of the law would have no longer any place, nor 
would they be required. They belonged to another, a 
rudimental, preparatory system, that was passing away. 
The barrier between Jew and Gentile was about to fall 
down. The sublime declaration of Jesus at the well 
of Sychem respecting the nature of acceptable worship 
and the abolishment of all restrictions of place, as well 
as many other passages hardly less significant, will 
readily occur to the reader. We will accommodate 
ourselves to the predilection of the Tubingen critics for 
the Gospel of Matthew, and draw some illustrations 
from that source. First, the spiritual character of the 
doctrines and precepts of Jesus is a mos,t impressive 
characteristic. Righteousness and piety,, as described 
in the Sermon on the Mount, belong to the tempers of 
the heart. The inwardness of true religion was never 
so thoroughly and sublimely laid down as in this teach- 
by his usual perspicuity and force. See Das Christeiithum, etc., s. 
25 seq. 

1 So De Wette and Meyer. 



214 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

ing. For him who thus taught, what value could 
forms, in themselves considered, possess ? The love of 
God and man is the sum and substance of duty ; to 
be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect, the sole 
aspiration. Secondly, in his direct opposition to the 
Pharisees, the real character of the principles of Christ 
comes out. It is formalism — a trust in forms — which 
calls forth his reprobation. "Not that which goeth 
into the mouth defileth a man ; but that which cometh 
out of the mouth/' " Those things which proceed out 
of the mouth come forth from the heart ; and they 
defile the man " " But to eat with unwashen hands 
defileth not a man." (Matt. xv. 11, 18, 20). What a 
simple and luminous exposition of the nature of good 
and evil ! How clear that in the eyes of Jesus, forms 
had no inherent value, no abiding existence ! The 
abrogation of the former system he affirmed and 
explained by saying that new wine must not be put in 
old bottles, or new cloth patched into an old garment. 
How could he more pointedly affirm that he was 
establishing a system so far different from the old, that 
the features of the two could not be blended.? To 
cling to the old ritual, as something essential, would 
have the effect to destroy the fundamental peculiarity 
of the new system. Attempt it not, "lest the bottles 
should break and the wine be spilled" (Matt. ix. 17 
paral.). This, be it remembered, was in reply to the 
question, why his disciples abstained from fasting. 
Thirdly, Christ forewarned his Jewish hearers that the 



BAURS THEORY. 215 

Gentiles would even take their place in gaining posses- 
sion of the blessinsrs of the new kingdom. In con- 
nection with the centurion's exhibition of faith in the 
power of Jesus to heal his absent servant, he said that 
many would come from the east and west, many Gen- 
tiles, and sit down with the Patriarchs in the kingdom 
of Heaven, whilst the children of the kingdom — the 
natural expectants of the inheritance — would be cast 
out (Matt. viiUll, 12). In the parable of the vine- 
yard and the rebellious husbandmen, who stand for the 
Jews, their crime in slaying the messengers of the 
owner, and finally his son and heir, leads to their 
destruction and to the letting out of " the vineyard 
unto other husbandmen/' The Jews, rejecting the 
Messiah, are to be supplanted by the Gentiles. In 
keeping with such teaching are the predictions uttered 
by Christ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and 
the downfall of the temple. Looking down upon the 
city, he said : " Behold your house is left unto you 
desolate ! " But the disciples were commanded to 
carry the gospel to the Gentiles — to disciple the 
nations. That the Gentiles were to be embraced in 
the Messianic kingdom was a familiar part of prophecy. 
As to how the kingdom was to be extended over them, 
was a point in regard to which the prevalent anticipa- 
tions were colored by the mistaken ideas and unspiritual 
ambition of the people. But the incorporation of the 
Gentiles, in some way, into the Messiah's kingdom, all 
the Jews expected. Christ commanded that the same 



216 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

gospel which the disciples had received themselves 
should be offered to their acceptance — adding the 
direction that the believer should be baptized, and the 
promise that he should be saved. All other points he 
left to be settled in the light of providential events and 
under the subsequent teaching of the Holy Spirit. In 
accordance with that reserve which adapted the dis- 
closure of truth to the recipiency of the learner, Christ 
went no farther than to throw out the great principles, 
the command and the intimations which have been 
adverted to, not defining precisely either what course 
the heathen were to take with reference to the Mosaic 
ritual, or what was to become of ceremonial Judaism. 
These things the apostles were left to learn, in the 
prosecution of their work, by the outward instruction 
of providential events and the inward ilium ination by 
the Spirit. This reserve on the part of Christ is a 
characteristic and impressive example of the divine 
method of teaching. Instead of tearing up the old 
institutions — sweeping them away by a peremptory 
edict, before the mind was prepared for the change 
by perceiving that they had become superfluous, he left 
the Church to be first educated up to the requisite 
point. The dropping of the old forms was to result, 
as a logical and necessary consequence, from the expan- 
sive force of the new system. The logic of events — 
the full comprehension of the gospel — the distinct 
understanding of the offices of Christ — -would under- 
mine and supplant the ritual law. How much better 



217 

for the revolution to take place thus, than to be precipi- 
tated by an abrupt decree, enforced as a law from 
without upon minds which had gained no insight into 
the ground and reason for a seeming repeal of divinely 
given statutes ! 

Let us now proceed to note the manner in which 
the great lesson was learned. The apostles, and the 
infant church at Jerusalem under their guidance, 
continue to observe the ceremonies of the law as of 
old. They have no thought of dispensing with cir- 
cumcision and the other requirements of the ritual. 
They are Jews, believing in the Messiah. The first 
murmur of difference in that young community, of 
which the opening part of Acts presents so delightful 
a picture, is the complaint of the Hellenists — the 
foreign, Greek-speaking Jews — that their poor are 
neglected in the distribution of alms. This little 
incident, apart from its immediate consequence, is 
significant as bringing before us the two classes of 
Jews, which, though closely and cordially united by 
a common descent and common creed, are yet in some 
respects dissimilar, as subsequent events prove. Of 
the deacons chosen, one is said to have been a 
proselyte of righteousness ; that is, a heathen admitted 
by circumcision to a full participation in the privileges 
of the Jew. The persecution attending the martyrdom 
of Stephen 1 disperses the Church and leads to the 

1 Stephen was a Hellenist. He was charged by " false witnesses " 
with blaspheming the temple and the law, and with saying that 



218 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

first effective preaching of the word beyond Jerusalem. 
The vision of Peter, and the baptism of Cornelius, 
are the earliest recognition of Gentile Christianity. 
Whether Cornelius was, or was not, a proselyte of 
the gate, cannot be determined, nor is the question 
very material. The previous feeling of Peter and 
the Jerusalem Christians, as to the qualifications 
for admission to the Christian Church, is seen in 
his remark on the occasion of his interview with 
Cornelius : "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing 
for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come 
unto one of another nation." 2 Moreover, on his 
return to Jerusalem, "they that were of the circum- 
cision " — the Jewish Christians — call him to account 
for having eaten with Gentiles (Acts xi. 2, 3). His 
defence is a recapitulation of the circumstances of his 
vision and a statement of the fact that the gifts of 

Jesus of Nazareth would "destroy this place," and "change the 
customs" delivered by Moses (Acts vi. 18, 14). The witnesses 
were "false," since doubtless they maliciously perverted what 
Stephen had said. Yet it is evident from the tone of his speech — 
see especially Acts vii. 47-50, and the denunciation he was uttering 
when he was interrupted— that the charge was not a pure invention, 
but was built up on what Stephen had said. See ISTeander's 
ApostelgeschicJite, B. I. s. 86. 

2 Abstinence to this extent from intercourse with the heathen 
was not enjoined in the Pentateuch. But Peter's remark repre- 
sents the feeling and usual practice of the later Jews. The prose- 
lyte of the gate was uncircumcised, so that there was a like repug- 
nance to intercourse with him — at least to sitting at the table with 
him. 



219 

the Spirit had been exhibited by the new converts. 
" Forasmuch," he says, " then, as God gave them the 
like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, what was I that I could withstand God ?" 
This explanation for the time appeases the discontent. 
But the principal event is the establishment of a 
Gentile church, or a church made up partly of con- 
verted and baptized heathen, at Antioch. We read 
that those who were scattered abroad by the persecu- 
tion following the death of Stephen " travelled as far 
as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the 
word unto none but unto Jews only. And some of 
them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which when 
they were come to Antioch spake unto the Grecians" 
not Hellenists but Hellenes, " preaching the Lord 
Jesus." A great number of the Grecians — uncir- 
cumcised Gentiles — moved by that sense of spiritual 
necessities which prevailed so extensively among the 
heathen throughout the Roman world, believed in 
Christ. Observe it was men of Cyprus and Cyrene — 
Hellenists — who laid the foundation of this Gentile 
church. Barnabas, himself a Jew by birth, but a 
native of Cyprus, is sent from Jerusalem to visit this 
rising church so strangely composed. Seeing the 
reality of the work of grace which had been effected, 
he rejoiced in it, and having brought Paul — who was 
also, by birth a Hellenist — from Tarsus, whither he 
had retired, the two labored together for a year, 
" and taught much people." Paul is now fairly 



220 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

embarked upon the grand work of his life. Partly 
on account of the peculiarity of his inward experience 
and partly on account of the depth and logical force 
of his mind — not to speak of special enlightenment 
from above — he discerned most clearly that faith, 
and faith alone, is the condition of salvation; that to 
make the soul depend for pardon upon legal obser- 
vances along with faith, is to set the ground of 
salvation, partially at least, outside of Christ, and to 
found the Christian hope upon self-righteousness 
instead of his merits. He went straight to the 
unavoidable inference that the ritual system is not 
to be observed as a means of salvation, and is in no 
sense obligatory upon the Gentiles. Thus Paul stands 
forth, in this part of the apostolic age, the glorious 
champion of the freedom and universality of the 
gospel. It is a religion for the world — not for the 
Jew alone, but for the Gentile equally. The wall that 
divided the two classes of mankind, " the hand-writing 
of ordinances " being now blotted out, has been 
levelled to the ground. The missionary journey of 
Paul and Barnabas greatly enlarged the number of 
heathen converts; for when they had first preached 
to the Jews in the places they visited, they then 
turned to the Gentiles. After their return they 
continued their labors at Antioch, now the parent 
of churches among the heathen, and the second 
metropolis, as it were, of Christianity. But the 
church of Antioch is disturbed by certain men which 



baur's theory. 221 

came down from Judea — judaizers — who declared 
the necessity of circumcision for salvation. As the 
result of the "no small dissension and disputation 
with them/' it is determined to send Paul and 
Barnabas at the head of a deputation to Jerusalem 
to confer with the apostles and elders upon this 
question. Of this visit, besides the narrative in the 
Acts, we have the advantage of an invaluable notice 
from the pen of Paul himself (Gal. ii.). Waiving for 
the present the consideration of this last passage, we 
see from the account of Luke, that when the mes- 
sengers from Antioch had been received by their 
brethren at Jerusalem, " certain of the sect of the 
Pharisees which believed" brought forward their 
demand, that the Gentile converts should be circum- 
cised and required to observe the Mosaic law. It is 
interesting to notice that the zealous judaizers were 
converted Pharisees. After much disputing, Peter 
and James interpose ; the former referring to the 
events connected with the baptism of Cornelius, and 
both rejecting the proposition of the judaizers. Their 
judgment and that of the church was, that certain 
statutes which the Jew deemed most essential, should 
be complied with by the heathen converts. They 
were to abstam "from meats offered to idols, and 
from blood, and from things strangled, and from 
fornication." The fact of the reading of the law of 
Moses in the synagogues of every city on the Sabbath, 
is set forth as a reason for the propriety of this re- 



222 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

quireracnt. 1 Thus, so far as the influence of the 
apostles went, this great question was put to rest, 

1 The precise significance of this reason has been a mooted point 
among commentators. Of the various interpretations which have 
been suggested, it appears to ns that the choice lies between two. 
Some would paraphrase the passage thus: a as to the Jews, they 
need no prescription, since they will of course follow the law which 
is read on the Sabbath." This was the interpretation of Chrysostom, 
and is adopted by Neander. Others, including Meyer and Lekebusch, 
make the passage a statement of the reason why the Gentiles were 
to conform in these particulars to the Jewish law ; the reason, 
namely, that the reading of the law in the synagogues every Sab- 
bath, rendered it more offensive to the Jews to see that law, in these 
conspicuous points, disregarded. This appears to us to be the true 
sense of the passage. Gieseler, and also Baur, would make the 
passage signify by implication, that "the Jewish law had proved 
itself ineffectual for the conversion of the Gentiles, whilst the oppo- 
site result in connection with the preaching of Paul and his asso- 
ciates, had shown the ceremonial law to be the only hindrance to 
the spread of the true religion." Ewald suggests that the reason 
was advanced to pacify the fear of those who thought that the 
Mosaic law would fall into disuse if this indulgence were extended 
to the Gentile converts. Both these interpretations seem to us 
much less natural than the one we have approved. The view we 
adopt is supported by the authority of Professor Hackett in his 
scholarly work on the Acts. 

As to the decision itself, it consists of four particulars. The 
heathen converts were to abstain from the flesh of animals slain as a 
sacrifice to idols, from using the blood of animals for food, from 
fornication, and from eating animals who had been strangled or put 
to death by any other mode than by shedding their blood. The 
first of these was in compliance with Ex. xxxiv. 15. The second and 
the fourth were Levitical statutes, and founded on the sacredness 
of blood. The third, a moral prohibition, was joined with these 
adiaphora, because in the progress of heathen corruption it had 
come to be regarded as almost an adiaphoron — a thing morally 



baur's theory. 223 

and on grounds satisfactory to Paul and his coad- 
jutors. But the judaizing party was far from resting 
satisfied under this most Christian arrangement. As 
all know, they pursued the Apostle Paul wherever 
he went, sowing division in the churches he planted 
and striving to destroy the esteem in which he was 
held by his converts. They seem to have sometimes 
made use of the name of Peter, and to have pretended 
to be his followers, and we find a self-styled party 
of Peter among the opponents of Paul in the Corin- 
thian church. 

After the conference at Jerusalem, there are two 
occurrences that deserve special notice. The one 
is the controversy of Paul and Peter, or, rather, the 
rebuke of Peter by Paul at Antioch. Peter had 
associated freely with the Gentile converts — had eaten 
with them. But on the arrival of certain judaizing 
Christians from Jerusalem, he changed his course out 
of a timid regard to their prejudice, and withdrew 
from the Gentile believers. Even Barnabas was led 
to follow his example. Paul publicly "withstood" 
Peter, saying: "If thou then, being a Jew, livest 
after the manner of the Gentiles (e&vixcog), why com- 
pellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews 
(lovdai&iv) ? " We shall hereafter consider this 
controversy more at length. Here Ave merely call 



indifferent. See on this point, Winer's Real. Worterd., Art. Hure, 
and Meyer on Acts xv. 20. 



224 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

attention to the ground of Paul's complaint, which 
was a dereliction from his own principles, or hypo- 
critical conduct, on the part of Peter. The charge 
was that "he walked not uprightly/' It was not 
an error of opinion, but a moral error, which Paul 
censured. 

The other occurrence requiring special notice, 
is the last visit of Paul to Jerusalem. The narrative 
of Luke gives us a clear view of the state of things 
in the church there. Paul and his associates were 
cordially received. But when he had recounted to 
the apostles the fruits of his ministry among the 
Gentiles, and they had welcomed the intelligence, 
James informs him of a prejudice against him in the 
minds of many, owing to a report which had gained 
credence. He had been charged, doubtless by Jews 
and Judaizers from Asia and the west, with having 
urged the foreign, Greek-speaking Jews — the Helle- 
nists — to forsake the Mosaic law and abstain from 
circumcising their children. This accusation was false. 
The Jewish- Christian members of the Gentile churches 
were, not unlikely, as Ewald conjectures, falling away 
from the observance of the ritual. And this might 
have given occasion to the charge against Paul. But 
there is not a particle of evidence tending to show 
that he ever sought to dissuade Jews from complying 
with the ritual. He rejected the doctrine that the 
observance of the law is essential to salvation. He 
rejected the doctrine that the observance of it was 



POSITION OP THE APOSTLE PAUL. 225 

obligatory upon Gentile converts ; and the adoption 
by them of the Jewish ritual under the idea that 
salvation was contingent upon observing it, he re- 
garded as a fatal error — as a dishonor to the suffi- 
ciency of Christ, and a method of self-righteousness. 
But his opposition to the law extended no farther. 
On the contrary, as he himself said, to the Jews he 
made himself a Jew. He respected their national 
feelings and customs. Hence he found no difficulty 
in taking upon him the vow which James recommend- 
ed, as a visible proof that the charges against him 
were false, and that he w r as no renegade from the 
religion of his fathers. 1 But this act did not save 
him from the fanatical hatred of the Jews from Asia — 
the unbelieving Jews who had so often stirred up 
tumults against him in the towns where he had 
preached. However he may have pacified the believ- 
ing Jews by showing respect for the national customs, 
he did not secure himself from the violence of the 
Asian Jews who were present in the city in large 
numbers, and in addition to their old enmity were 
exasperated by the erroneous impression that Paul 
had taken Trophimus, an Ephesian Gentile whom 
they had seen with him, into the temple. Hence the 
mob, which had for its final consequence the journey 
of the apostle to Rome. 

From this survey we are brought to the conclusion 

1 The feeling of James respecting the propriety of observing the 
law is plainly discovered in Acts xxi. 24. 
15 



226 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

that while it is true that the Apostle Paul understood 
the relations of the new and the old dispensation with 
peculiar clearness, and vindicated the liberty of the 
Gentiles with a singular depth of conviction and an 
unvarying consistency, it is nevertheless true, also, 
that Peter and the original apostles, and the church 
of Jerusalem, as far as its public action is concerned, 
were in cordial fellowship with Paul and willingly 
tolerated the Gentile branch of the church, not 
imposing upon it the yoke of the law, with the excep- 
tion of the few prudential regulations recommended 
by the apostolic convention. 

Baur and his followers maintain an opposite 
opinion. There existed, they bold, a radical opposi- 
tion in principle between these two branches of the 
church, which involved a mutual antagonism on the 
part of their apostolic leaders. The proof of this 
position Baur professes to find chiefly in certain 
expressions of the Apostle Paul in his Epistles, which 
are alleged to be inconsistent with many of the 
representations found in the Acts. Prom the two 
Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the 
Galatians, Baur draws most of the arguments on 
which he relies to establish his position. There was 
in the Corinthian church, we are told, a party which 
denied that Paul had a right to consider himself an 
apostle, and sought to supplant him by setting up 
the superior authority of Peter and the rest of the 
original disciples of Christ. This party was stirred 



baur's theory. 227 

up by Jewish Christians who brought the letters of 
recommendation from Jerusalem, to which Paul 
sarcastically alludes. 1 In the Epistle to the Galatians, 
it is said, the radical diversity of principles between 
the two types of Christianity, already developed in 
the Epistles to the Corinthians, is attended with the 
record of a personal alienation between Peter and 
Paul, which, so far as we know, was never healed. 
In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul is supposed to 
write in a milder and more conciliatory spirit ; an- 
nouncing his intention to carry the contribution of 
money to Jerusalem, and in other ways manifesting 
a disposition to overcome the hostility which, it is 
pretended, existed against him and his doctrine on 
the side of the mother- church. Especially does Baur 
dwell upon the account in the Acts of the circumcision 
of Timothy, asserting that such an act would be 
absolutely incompatible with the doctrine laid down 
by Paul (Gal. v. 2) : " If ye be circumcised, Christ 
shall profit you nothing." Other instances of con- 
formity to the Jewish law, which are attributed to 
Paul in the Acts, he pronounces to be equally 
unhistorical. The entire representation given there 
of the personal relations of Paul to Peter and his 
associates, Baur affirms to be contrary to the in- 
timations and assertions of Paul, and to be con- 
tradicted, in particular, by Paul's narrative of his 

Such letters might be taken, probably, by any Christian who 
was rectus in ecclesia, in case he wished to travel. 



228 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

conference with the apostles, in the second chapter 
of Galatians. 

We believe that these propositions of the Tubin- 
gen critics are not sustained by the evidence to which 
they appeal, but are flatly contradicted by it, and that 
their positions are contrary to the truth. What 
evidence is there, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, 
of such a division and hostility as Baur affirms to have 
existed ? There was a faction which claimed to be 
the disciples of Peter. But what proof is there that 
he gave them any countenance? There was also, 
among the opponents of Paul, a party claiming to 
follow Apollos — himself a disciple of the Pauline 
doctrine. Who pretends that Apollos encouraged 
such a movement ? To our mind, all the language of 
Paul in reference to the other apostles which is 
found in these Epistles, proves the opposite of Baur's 
proposition. The apostles are spoken of as one 
body of fellow-laborers. In vindicating his authority 
against the aspersions cast upon him, Paul asserts, 
to be sure, that "he is not a whit behind the very 
chiefest apostles " (2 Cor. xi. 5). But he does not 
say or insinuate that " the chiefest apostles " are no 
apostles, or that they are perverters of the truth. 
The opposite of this is everywhere implied. He says : 
" God has set forth us the apostles last, as it were 
appointed to death ; " and in the record of hardship 
that follows, he associates with himself his fellow- 
apostles. Witness also his appeal to the testimony 



baur's theory. 229 

of the other apostles — of Peter, James, and the rest — 
in proof of the Resurrection of Christ, and the coup- 
ling of their testimony with the reference to the 
appearance of Christ to himself : " For 2" am the least 
of the apostles and not worthy to be called an apostle, 
because I persecuted the Church of God." He com- 
pares himself with the other apostles and takes the 
lowest place among them ! But a more striking re- 
futation of Baur's view is contained in the remarks of 
Paul upon the contribution he was collecting for the 
poor brethren at Jerusalem. In the First Epistle he 
exhorts the Corinthians to aid in making up this 
" contribution for the saints " — saints it appears they 
were, notwithstanding their supposed heresy and 
hostility ! And in the Second Epistle he speaks of 
the matter more at length. He had long been 
engaged in this charitable service (ix. 2). He says 
that the conveyance, by his instrumentality, of this 
contribution, will not only relieve "the wants of the 
saints," but will call forth at Jerusalem " thanks- 
giving unto God ; " that the church at Jerusalem 
will find occasion to glorify God for the faithfulness 
of the Corinthians in thus practically carrying out 
their Christian profession, and for the genuineness 
of their Christian fellowship {xotvowiai) manifested in 
this liberality. He adds that the saints at Jerusalem 
with prayer " will long after you " on account of the 
abounding grace of God vouchsafed to you. A deep, 
yearning, prayerful interest will be excited towards 



230 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

the Corinthian Christians in the hearts of their 
brethren at Jerusalem. Who can believe that this 
contribution is going to a church which is considered 
by Paul to be made up of Judaizers — professors of 
what he calls another gospel? If the Corinthians 
had understood Paul's letter to them as Baur does, 
what must have been their surprise at these incon- 
gruous exhortations and expressions of fraternal re- 
gard for the Jerusalem believers ! Turn we now to 
the Epistle to the Romans, written not long after. 
There we find the apostle pouring out his love and 
compassion for his kinsmen according to the flesh — 
explaining that the apparent rejection of them by 
Divine Providence is temporary. Of the contribution 
he says : " Now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto 
the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia 
and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor 
saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them 
verily, and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles 
have been made partakers of their spiritual things " — ■ 
for Jerusalem was the mother- church whence Chris- 
tianity with all its blessings flowed out to the Gentiles 
— " their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal 
things" (Rom. xv. 25 seq.). 1 Here the Apostle Paul 
honors the Jerusalem church as the fountain whence 
the Gentiles have derived their Christianity. Are 
these expressions compatible with the notion that this 

1 Principally on account of its alleged complaisance towards the 
Jewish Christians, the xvth chapter (as well as the xvith) of this 



B AUft's THEORY. 231 

church had no fellowship with the uncircurncised 
converts of Christianity, and that its leaders were 
hostile to Paul, and in turn considered by him to be 
involved in fundamental error? The assertion or 
insinuation by Baur, that there was any essential 
change in Paul's feeling between the writing of the 
Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, and that 
to the Romans, is without foundation. During the 
whole period in which the composition of the first- 
named Epistles occurred, Paul was interested in the 
business of gathering the contribution which he after- 
wards carried to Jerusalem. 

But the main reliance of Baur is on Paul's narra- 
tive, in the second chapter of Galatians, of his confer- 
ence with the apostles and his subsequent conflict 
with Peter at Antioch. But an examination of this 
interesting passage, instead of confirming Baur's 
theory, will, as we think, demonstrate its falsity. Be 
it remembered that Paul is writing to a church which 
the Judaizers had tried to turn away both from his 

Epistle is declared by Baur — without the shadow of external proof 
and contrary to the internal evidence of both style and thought — to 
be an interpolation. His argument is a mere petitio principii. The 
arbitrary attempt to cast these inconvenient passages out of the 
Epistle, is well answered by Meyer in his Commentary on the Romans 
(K. xv.). Bleek, a cautious and unprejudiced critic, says, in reference 
to the denial by Baur and Schwegler of the genuineness of the last 
two chapters of the Epistle : " The grounds for this denial are wholly 
false and untenable, and the genuineness of these chapters, as well 
as the fact of their belonging to our Epistle, is to be regarded as 
certain." Einl. in d. K T., s. 416. 



232 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

doctrine and from their esteem and respect for his 
person and apostolic authority. He is placed under 
the necessity of explaining his relations to the other 
apostles ; and this he does by showing, on the one 
hand, his own independence and equality with them, 
and, on the other, the full recognition and fellowship 
which they had accorded to him. He is speaking 
of the same visit which Luke describes in the fifteenth 
chapter of the Acts. Fourteen years after his first 
visit to Jerusalem, when he had spent a fortnight with 
Peter (i. 18), he went there in company with Barnabas 
and Titus. He communicated " privately to them 
which were of reputation " (rotg §oxoi>6l), the gospel 
which he was in the habit of preaching. 1 His motive 
in taking this course is set forth in the following 
words : " lest by any means I should run, or had run, 
in vain." That is to say, he explained his method of 
preaching in order that he might be rightly judged 
and appreciated by his fellow-apostles. We shall see, 
as we proceed, whether or not he was successful. 
Before stating the result of his conference, he de- 
scribes the ineffectual attempt of "false brethren 
unawares brought in " to procure the circumcision 
of Titus, and his own prompt and effectual resistance 

1 This account by Paul, and the narrative in the xvth of Acts, 
supplement each other. The latter relates to the public transaction, 
including the decision which was reached; the former, as above 
stated, refers to a conference of a more private nature. But the 
phraseology in Gal. ii. 2 implies that there was a 'public conference 
also. See Ellicott and Meyer on the passage. 



baur's theory. 233 

to their endeavor. The "false brethren " are Judaiz- 
ing reactionists having no right in the Christian 
brotherhood, but having crept in, as it were- — intrud- 
ed where they do not belong. They made it their 
business " to spy out the liberty " of the Gentile 
converts ; that is, they watched with an inimical 
intent, designing to bring these converts to accept the 
yoke of the Mosaic law. Here the difference between 
such false brethren and the apostles is palpable. 
Would Paul have undertaken to explain his gospel to 
these " false brethren/' lest he should run in vain ? 
Rather would he, as he did, sternly resist them. But 
the refusal of Paul to circumcise Titus is used as an 
argument to disprove the historical truth of the cir- 
cumcision of Timothy. It is said that Paul would 
not have done at one time what he absolutely refused 
to do at another. But why did he refuse to circum- 
cise Titus ? First, because he was a heathen by birth, 
and secondly, because his circumcision was demanded 
on doctrinal grounds, so that to yield would have 
been to give up at once the rights of the Gentiles and 
justification by faith. But Timothy was the son of 
a Jewish mother, and he was circumcised for a totally, 
different reason from that for which the circumcision 
of Titus was demanded. Timothy was circumcised 
out of respect to unconverted Jews, not converted 
Judaizers. His circumcision neither imperilled the 
rights of the Gentiles, nor clashed with the doctrine 
of Justification. In this act, Paul simply made him- 



234 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

self " a Jew unto the Jew" on his maxim of making 
himself all things to all men — so far as no principle 
was violated. 1 There is, then, no inconsistency such as 
is charged by the Tubingen critics. The circumcision 
of Timothy as truly accords with the principles of 
Paul, as the circumcision of Titus would have con- 
tradicted them. Having mentioned the circumstances 
concerning Titus, Paul now returns to his conference 
with the apostles : " But of those " — from those — ■ 
"who seemed to be somewhat," — that is, were re- 
garded with most respect — here Paul breaks off the 
sentence by throwing in this parenthetical remark : 
" whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me , 
God accepteth no man's person ; " and then he adds : 
"for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference 
added nothing to me." The mode of characterizing 
the apostles as " those who seem to be somewhat," 
is misinterpreted when it is supposed to contain a 
tinge of irony. Nothing of that sort belongs to the 
phraseology. It is the equivalent of the earlier ex- 
pression — u them which were of reputation." And 
as to the parenthetical clause, it must be remembered 
that Paul's enemies were endeavoring to disprove his 
claim to be an apostle, and to represent that the 
older apostles were possessed of superior authority. 
His purpose is to express, as against this disparage- 
ment, his consciousness of a perfect equality in respect 
to rights and claims, with the other apostles. And 

1 1 Cor. ix. 20 seq. 



baur's theory. 235 

having been led to allude to the high estimation in 
which they stood, he adds a cautionary explanation 
which would exclude the inference that he considered 
himself in any degree subordinate to them. " What- 
ever they were — however high may be the standing 
of men, God is not thereby rendered partial towards 
them." The last clause in the quotation above, is, 
however, the most important. Paul says of the 
apostles, that in conference they added nothing — • 
ovS&p ^QOGavkdtvTO — to him. He had shortly before 
said that on his arrival in Jerusalem he " communica- 
ted" — avtd'b^u]v is the word — -to the apostles the 
gospel he had preached. And now he says that they 
— ouStv TiQooavt&tvTO — had nothing to add to that 
gospel by way of correction or supplement. They had 
no fault to find with it, no new principles to suggest • 
"but contrariwise ",they — what ? for everything turns 
on the statement that is to follow — " they gave tome 
and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship" Seeing 
that Paul had been successful in converting the 
Gentiles as Peter had been successful in converting 
the Jews, and heeding this instruction of Providence ; 
seeing, moreover, the " grace that was given " to Paul, 
the other apostles — who seemed to be pillars, or, 
rather, were esteemed as the leaders and supporters, 
of the Jerusalem church — Peter, James, and John, 
gave the hand of fraternity and fellowship, it being 
understood that in accordance with the plain sugges- 
tions of Providence, Paid and Barnabas should labor 



236 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

in heathen countries, whilst the other apostles should 
" go unto the circumcision." These statements, in- 
stead of supporting, utterly demolish Baur's theory. 
To say as he does, in effect, that this union was on 
the outside — was, in fact, a peaceable division and 
schism in the church, in which those who affirmed the 
necessity of circumcision and those who denied it, 
being unable to walk together, concluded to divide 
without an open quarrel, is to offer as gross a mis- 
interpretation of a Scriptural passage as can well be 
conceived. The Apostle Paul expressly says that the 
other apostles had nothing to add to the principles 
which governed him in his preaching. He implies, 
and intends to convey the idea, that Peter, James, 
and John, were satisfied with the gospel which he 
preached. The imputation that Paul gave the right 
hand of fellowship to those who maintained, to use his 
own language, " another gospel," when neither he 
nor they felt that they were brethren, holding a com- 
mon faith and engaged in a common work, is wholly 
inconsistent with his known character, and would 
reflect upon him and them the deepest dishonor. That 
the fellowship was cordially meant is proved in a 
manner which no audacity of denial can gainsay, by 
the reasons which Paul assigns for the ? act, — the 
perception, namely, that a great work of God had 
been done among the Gentiles, and that Paul was 
himself endued with heavenly grace for the work of 
an apostle. The same thing is rendered still more 

\ 






PAUL S REBUKE OF PETER. 237 

evident by the circumstance that the Jerusalem apos- 
tles requested Paul and Barnabas to remember the 
poor at Jerusalem and collect for them contributions — 
to which request they willingly agreed. Of the zeal 
with which Paul addressed himself to this work of 
charity and fellowship, we have abundant evidence. 1 
Did Peter, James, and John, seek for the money of 
heretics and heretical teachers ? Did Paul and Barna- 
bas labor to minister to the wants of Judaizers — 
" dogs," as Paul plainly calls them in the Epistle to 
the Philippians ? No ! the fellowship of the Jewish 
and Gentile teachers was genuine and cordial : and 
so the underpinning of the whole Tubingen theory falls 
away. 

It would argue, however, not only an ignorance 
of the subsequent history, but also an ignorance of 
human nature, to suppose that this friendly and 
fraternal interview and the decisions of the apostolic 
convention would avail either to define, in all points, 
the relation of the two branches of the church, or to 
suppress permanently the judaizing faction. That 

1 It had been a custom of the Jews scattered in foreign lands to 
send up gifts to the capital, expressing thus their sense of the pre- 
eminence of the Judaean church gathered about the centre of their 
religion. Ewald associates this old custom with the record of the 
repeated contributions sent from the Gentile churches to the mother- 
church at Jerusalem. These were, to be sure, only voluntary tokens 
of love. Yet the Jewish Christian would naturally be reminded 
of the old custom we have mentioned. Hence the fact of the send- 
ing of these contributions would be a peculiar sign of respect as well 
as fellowship. See Ewald's Geschichte, &c, B. YI. s. 438. 



238 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

this faction was still alive and influential, was shown 
by the transactions at Antioch which Paul proceeds 
to explain. Peter had not hesitated to eat with the 
Gentile converts there ; to break over thus the restric- 
tion which the Jew placed upon himself, as to inter- 
course with the heathen. 1 But on the arrival of 
certain Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he changed 
his course and withdrew from them • the other Jewish 
converts and even Barnabas following his example. 2 
This conduct of Peter roused the indignation and call- 
ed forth the plain and earnest rebuke of Paul. In 
mingling freely with the Gentile Christians, Peter 
acted in keeping with the liberal views which he had 
acquired in connection with the conversion of Corne- 
lius and had expressed at the apostolic convention. 
This convention had not defined what course the 
Jewish Christians were to take on the point in ques- 
tion. We cannot say, therefore, that Peter, in case 
he had abstained from eating with the Gentiles, would 
have violated the terms of that arrangement. It is 
not remarkable that in the conference at Jerusalem 

1 See Luke xv. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 11. 

2 These Christians from Jerusalem are said (ver. 12) to have come 
dno 'laKaifiov — that is, to have been sent by James. The business on 
which they were sent, we know not, just as we know not the partic- 
ular object of Peter's visit. There is no intimation that James had 
given any sanction to the course which they chose to take with 
respect to the Gentile believers. To suppose that he had, would be 
as unwarrantable as to infer, from the course which Peter had first 
taken, that he had been sent, or had come, expressly to eat with the 
Gentiles and live as one of them. 



PAUl/s REBUKE 0E PETER. 239 

this particular question was not settled or considered ; 
and although this freedom of intercourse which swept 
down all the old barriers between Jew and heathen 
might be a logical deduction from the spirit of that 
agreement, it is not remarkable that Jewish believers 
— even those of a liberal turn and in favor of the 
fellowship concluded upon at the convention — should 
fail to perceive at once the propriety of such a prac- 
tice. Peculiar embarrassments, as we shall hereafter 
more fully point out, lay in the way of such a conces- 
sion. We must not forget the force of a life-long, 
hereditary prejudice which is intrenched among relig- 
ious beliefs. Simple abstinence from this kind of 
fellowship with the Gentile Christians could not, 
therefore, be regarded as an absolute breach of the 
covenant which secured to them their rights and the 
recognition of their Christian standing. There were 
still two branches of the church. But the offence 
which Paul charged upon Peter was threefold. He 
was guilty of an inconsistency in departing from the 
course which he had pursued before the arrival of 
the Jewish Christians ; of hypocrisy, since in thus 
altering his conduct, he acted against his real convic- 
tions and from fear; and of the virtual attempt to 
lead the Gentile converts to judaize, or to make them 
feel that they ought to be circumcised. Peter was not 
accused of an error of doctrine, but of an error in 
conduct. He behaved in a manner inconsistent with 
his real views, just as Barnabas did, and there is just 



240 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

as little ground for imputing to Peter a judaizing 
principle on account of Ms conduct on this occasion, 
as there is for imputing the same principle to Barna- 
bas. Peter acted from the same cowardly feeling 
which had once moved him to deny his Master. If 
Paul had complained that Peter held a false principle, 
that he did not understand the rights of the Gentiles, 
this controversy might be urged in support of Baur's 
theory. But inasmuch as the censure of Paul pre- 
supposes an essential agreement between himself and 
Peter in their views upon the matter in question, 
Baur's theory not only gains no foothold, but is effec- 
tually overthrown by the record of this conflict. We 
simply add that Paul's reasoning on this occasion is 
a most forcible exposition of the principal ground of 
his unflinching opposition to the laying of the cere- 
monial law upon the Gentiles. Such an act would 
derogate from the sufficiency of Christ as a Saviour, 
and imply that when a man believed on him, he had 
not secured his salvation, but was still in his sins. 
" If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is 
dead in vain." 1 

The continuance of a judaizing party after all 
these events, and notwithstanding the fellowship 
between the apostle to the heathen and " the pillars " 
at Jerusalem, is not to us a cause of wonder. Re- 
member how ingrained was the prejudice that must 
be removed before the requirement of circumcision 

1 Gal. ii. 16-21. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 241 

could be dispensed with ! And how inveterate was 
the obstinacy of the pharisaical Jew, who had been so 
trained as hardly to distinguish between the moral 
and ceremonial precept, in respect either to sacredness 
or perpetuity, and who had accepted the Messiah, 
having no thought that the law or any portion of it 
was to pass away ! And the rapid spread of Gentile 
Christianity, a fact which threatened to reduce 
ultimately the party of the ritual to a hopeless minori- 
ty, would naturally rouse them to adhere more 
zealously to their position, and to put forth fresh 
efforts to obtain for it a triumph. 

The objections of Baur to the narrative of Luke 
disappear in the light of the preceding review. As 
to Peter, the fellowship he extended to Paul (Gal. ii. 
9), and his liberality in reference to the Gentile Chris- 
tians at Antioch — with the exception of the temporary 
infidelity to his real convictions — were the proper 
sequel of his vision in the case of Cornelius. There 
is nothing in Peter's course, which throws the least 
doubt upon the record of that event. We must* sup- 
pose, indeed, that in the interval of about fifteen years, 
between the affair of Cornelius and the apostolic 
convention, the judaizing spirit had grown stronger, 
rather than weaker, in the Jerusalem church. This 
was natural. Pharisees (Acts xv. 5) had become 
convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, and had 
brought into the church their zeal in behalf of a strict 

16 



242 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

adherence to the Mosaic ritual. And we have only 
to imagine the situation of that church, to perceive 
the difficulties that beset this whole subject. The 
Jewish Christians themselves kept up the observance 
of the old forms. They frequented the temple, like 
other devout Israelites. That they should give up the 
ceremonial law had not been claimed or suggested. 
As patriotic Jews, they could not break away from 
the national customs. But a religious motive bound 
them to the old observances until these should be 
repealed, or until they should discern that the gospel 
had virtually supplanted them. Luther's doctrine 
of justification carried with it logically the abolition 
of a great part of the existing ritual of the church. 
But it was only by degrees that the Wittenberg 
reformers felt the incongruity, and shook themselves 
clear, so to speak, of forms whose vitality was gone. 
And yet these forms were of merely human institution. 
Bat if the Jewish Christians would observe the law, 
how could they break over it in their intercourse with 
the Gentiles ? How should they adjust their relations 
to the heathen converts ? The state of things, as we 
gather it from Luke, is just what we should expect to 
result from this anomalous situation. On the one 
hand, there is rejoicing in the mother-church at the 
conversion of the Gentiles. It is seen that they have 
become recipients of the Spirit. There is a thankful 
acknowledgment of them as fellow-believers. Yet 
the question of freely mingling with them — of treating 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 243 

them in all respects as Jewish brethren were treated — 
was encumbered with the difficulties we have men- 
tioned. A bigoted but influential faction strenuously 
contended against the lawfulness of eating with 
heathen converts, and sought to impose on them 
circumcision and the other points of the ritual. The 
apostles, and the church acting as a body, refused 
this last demand, and shook hands with Paul, the 
determined defender of the rights of the Gentiles. 
Peter, enlightened by the teaching of the Spirit, could 
not refuse to eat with his Gentile brethren ; yet 
yielded for a time at Antioch to the pressure of 
judaizing opinion. The affair of Cornelius, if it 
excited discontent at Jerusalem, and had no perma- 
nent effect on the judaizing element which rather 
grew than declined in strength, left a lasting impres- 
sion on his mind, and led him at the apostolic con- 
vention to take the side of the Gentiles. 1 

It is easy to understand, we observe further, how 
there might be many who had no sympathy with the 
Judaizers in their requirement that the heathen con- 
vert should be circumcised, but were still unprepared 
for that degree of liberality in intercourse with their 
Gentile brethren which Peter had exhibited at 

1 For good remarks on the topics touched upon in the paragraph 
above, see Ewald's Ges. d. VolJces Israel, B. vi. s. 226 seq., 426 seq. 
We may add that the narrative of the conversion of CoAelius in the 
Acts is full of graphic details. Persons, places, and times, are 
exactly designated. If it be a fiction, it is an example of the " lie 
circumstantial." 



244 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

Antioch. We have among us a numerous and re- 
spectable body of Christians — a friend has suggested 
the illustration — who believe that baptism is an essen- 
tial prerequisite of communion, and that immersion 
alone is baptism ; who, therefore, decline to sit at the 
Lord's table with those whom they cordially love as 
fellow-Christians, and whose labors in spreading the 
gospel they look upon with heartfelt sympathy. The 
Baptist does not deny the name of Christian brother 
to those from whom he is obliged to withhold certain 
forms of fellowship. So it was, we doubt not, with 
many Jewish Christians. 1 

As concerns Paul, the narrative of Luke is equally 
relieved of difficulties. That Paul, in Galatians ii., 
does not mention the public conference, which Luke 
describes, is easily explained. It was no part of his 
purpose to give a complete history of the proceedings 
at Jerusalem. The particular point to which his 
mind was directed, was his relation to the other apos- 
tles. Had the public transaction modified, in any 
essential particular, the result of his private interview 
with them, he might have been called upon to speak 
of it. Such, however, was not the fact. He could 
conscientiously say that nothing was added — ovSlv 
nQoaavt&bVTO — to his gospel. The conclusions of 
the convention, founded as they were on a desire to 

1 It hardly need be said that we imply here no judgment as to 
the justice or injustice of the position which the Baptist takes. The 
illustration is pertinent, whether he be right or wroug. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 245 

put no needless obstruction in the way of the spread 
of the gospel among the Jews, and accompanied by 
an express acknowledgment of the rightful exemption 
of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law, were fully 
consistent with Paul's position. But if Paul was not 
called upon to allude, in Gal. h\, to the public pro- 
ceeding on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem, the 
purpose he had in view rendered it inappropriate that 
he should do so. His immediate purpose was to 
guard against the impression that he stood, in any 
sense, in a subordinate position with reference to the 
other apostles. An allusion to the arrangement of 
the convention might have furnished his enemies with 
a pretext for the unfounded charge of a dependence 
on his part upon " the pillars " at Jerusalem. 

It is objected to Luke's narrative of the conven- 
tion, that the decision which is said to have been 
made there would infallibly have been referred to by 
Paul in 1 Cor. viii., where the matter of eating flesh 
offered to idols is considered. In answer to this 
objection, we remark that the apostle in this passage 
does oppose the practice referred to, and on the same 
general ground as that assigned in the Jerusalem 
letter; namely, a regard for those who thought the 
practice wrong (comp. Acts xv. 21 and 1 Cor. viii. 
9 seq.). His aim was to instil a right feeling into 
the minds of the Corinthians, and to inculcate a 
principle on which they could act intelligently. An 
appeal to authority — or what would be taken for 



246 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

authority — would have defeated this design. Besides, 
it was not the danger of giving needless offence to 
the Jews, but it was the consciences of weak Gentile 
brethren which Paul had to consider. Moreover, the 
arrangement at the conference applied to the churches 
of Syria and Cilicia, in particular to Antioch and to 
the dissension that had broken out there. After 
Gentile Christianity had become widely prevalent, 
after Paul had fully entered, as an independent 
laborer, into his own peculiar field, and when, espe- 
cially, the Jewish Christians (of the Judaizing type) 
kept up their mischievous efforts to deprive the 
Gentiles of their liberty, it may well be assumed that 
the arrangement in question, based, as it was, on a 
prudential consideration, had become obsolete. It 
had been made to meet an emergency. When Paul 
had founded numerous churches, and churches, too, 
made up chiefly of Gentile converts, that recommen- 
dation, adopted for the sake of sparing the feelings 
of the Jews and of preventing the inference that the 
Gentiles were enemies of the Old Testament religion, 
would cease to have any validity. It had no resem- 
blance to the decree of a later council. It was a 
fraternal recommendation sent to Antioch, through 
Silas and Judas Barsabas (Acts xv. 22), the substance 
of it being also put into a letter which they carried. 
There was not a judicial proceeding, but a consulta- 
tion of brethren. 1 They did not come together to 

1 See, on this subject, Meander's Pflanz. u. Lett. d. Kirche, B. I., 



GENUINENESS OE THE ACTS. 247 

give law to the Church, but to quiet a particular 
disturbance. 

We are now prepared to consider the question of 
the genuineness of the Acts. If we have shown that 
the representation which is there given of the respec- 
tive positions of Paul and Peter, and of the mutual 
relations of the Jewish and Gentile Christians, is not 
discordant either with the statements of Paul or with 
the probabilities in the case, we have destroyed the 
sole argument of any weight against the genuineness 
of the book. For on this imaginary discordance the 
objection to the early composition of the Acts is 
founded. But, in our judgment, the genuineness of 
this book can be fully established, and the attack 
which has been made upon it shown to be groundless. 

1. The testimony of the author, direct and inci- 
dental, when we consider the form in which it is 
given, is a strong proof of the genuineness of the 
book, and in the absence of counteracting evidence, 
a convincing proof. 

We assume, what is now a conceded fact, that 
the third Gospel and the Acts have the same author. 
Independently of the evidence afforded by the preface 
to the Acts, the resemblance of the two books in 
language and style is conclusive. Now the third 
Gospel purports to be written by one personally 

s. 422 seq., LekebuscL, s. 314 seq., Bleek's Elnl. in d. K T., s. 371 
seq., Meyer, Gal. Einl. § 3, ApostelgeschicJite, s. 280. 



248 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

acquainted with the apostles. He records what he 
had received from " eyewitnesses and ministers of the 
word" (Luke i. 2). The Acts, addressed to the same 
Theophilus, and referring in its preface back to the 
Gospel, is the sequel of the latter work. The author 
of the Acts, therefore, claims to be an acquaintance 
of the apostles. And we may observe — though the 
remark might properly be made a special topic of 
evidence — that, since all the proof of the early date 
of the Gospel tends equally to establish the early date 
of the Acts, and since we have internal proof that the 
Gospel was written not later than about the date of 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the genuineness of the 
Acts is a necessary inference. Proving that Luke 
wrote the Gospel, we have proved that he wrote the 
Acts also. And the phraseology in the prologue of the 
Gospel obliges us to suppose either that the writer 
is a conscientious and well-informed historian, or con- 
sciously and basely false. He declares that he writes 
in order that Theophilus may be assured of the certain* 
ty, the unassailable reality — rt)v docfccl&cav — of the 
truths of Christianity in which he had been instructed. 
But not to dwell on the connection of the Gospel with 
the Acts, and considering this last book by itself, we 
are happily provided with an incidental testimony 
of the most convincing character. We allude to the 
passages in which the writer speaks in the first person 
plural, thus including himself among the participants 
in the events he records. This use of the " we " 



GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 249 

begins with Paul's leaving Troas (xvi. 11), and con- 
tinues in the account of his stay at Philippi. It is 
resumed on the return of Paul to Philippi (xx. 5-15) 
— thus raising the presumption that the author of 
these passages had in the interval tarried at that 
place. The remaining passages in which this pecu- 
liarity appears, are xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1 — xxviii. 17. 
Now, what is the explanation of this phenomenon ? 
Only two hypotheses are open to discussion among 
those who ascribe the book to Luke. The first is the 
old, generally received, and, as Ave think, well sus- 
tained view that Luke was himself, in these places, 
the attendant of Paul. The second is the hypothesis 
of Schleiermacher, variously modified by other writers, 
that Luke here introduces, without formal notice, 
a document emanating, as they commonly suppose, 
from Timothy, or, as some have thought, from Silas. 
This last form of the hypothesis, that Silas wrote the 
passages in question, is supported by no argument 
worthy of attention, and is fully refuted by the cir- 
cumstance that in connection with at least one of the 
passages (see Acts xvi. 19-25), Silas is mentioned in 
the third person. But the theory that Timothy is the 
author of these passages, though adopted by so able 
and candid a writer as Bleek, has been, as we believe, 
effectually disproved. 1 This theory does not, to be 

1 The examination of the "Timothy-hypothesis" by Lekebusch 
(s. 140-167), is one of the finest parts of his excellent treatise. We 
present the more prominent considerations bearing on the topic. 



250 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

sure, shake the general credibility of the book, or the 
fact of its being composed by Luke. But how stands 
the evidence in regard to it ? We read (in Acts xx. 
4, 5) : " And there accompanied him [Paul] into 
Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, 
Aristarchus and Secundus ; and Gaius of Derby, 
and Timotheus ; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. 
These going before tarried for us at Troas." If, under 
the term "these," all who are named before are 
referred to— which is the most natural interpretation 1 
■ — the so-called Timothy -hypothesis falls to the ground. 
In connection with this piece of evidence, it deserves 
remark that the absence of all detail — the summary 
style of the narrative — in passages directly connected 
with those under consideration, and covering a portion 
of Paul's career in which Timothy bore an equal part, 
is against the supposition that Luke had at his com- 
mand a diary of this apostolic helper. But the 
decisive argument against the Schleiermacherian hypo- 
thesis, is the wrong view of the general struct are and 
character of the book which that theory implies. 
Were it true that the book presents the appearance 
of being a compilation of documents imperfectly fused 
together — left in a good degree in their original state 
— it might not unreasonably be assumed that the 
author had taken up a document from another's pen, 
without taking care to alter the pronominal feature 
which we are discussing. This idea of the book was 

1 See Meyer, ad loc. 




GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 251 

a part of Schleiermacher's theory. But a more 
thorough examination of the Acts has made it clear 
that, from whatever sources the author draws his 
information, it is one production, coherent in plan ; 
its different parts connected by references forward and 
backward ; uniform in style ; and flowing from a 
single pen. If Luke took up into his work a docu- 
ment of Timothy, he could not have given it the com- 
plete harmony with his own style which it exhibits, 
without changing its form and phraseology to such an 
extent as renders it impossible to suppose the retention 
of the "toe" to be artless or accidental. Memoranda 
of Timothy, if Luke had such, were rewritten by him ; 
but this leaves the retaining of the " we," with no 
explanation, an insoluble fact. We infer, then, with 
confidence, that Luke, in these passages, professes to 
speak in his own person. 1 This fact Zeller and the 
other Tubingen critics admit ; and their conclusion is, 
that whilst the author of the Acts, writing in the 
second century, used a previously written document, 
he intentionally left the " we " as it stood — although 
the document in other parts was materially wrought 

1 There remains, to be sure, the unanswered question, why Luke 
does not more expressly state the fact of his joining Paul, but leaves 
it to be gathered from this use of the pronoun. But this difficulty 
is, to say the least, not greater than the difficulty of supposing him 
to introduce a document of this sort without notice and without 
altering the pronominal form. The book was written for a private 
individual. Of the circumstances of Luke's companionship with 
Paul, Theophilus may have known something before. 



252 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

over by him — in order to produce the false impression 
that he was the contemporary and associate of Paul ! 
This refined fraud is attributed, and it is thought 
necessary to attribute, to the author of the Acts ! But 
if we are not prepared to adopt this theory, we have 
no alternative but to accept the testimony of the 
author concerning himself ; that is, to ascribe his work 
to a contemporary and companion of the apostles. 

2. The assumption that the book of Acts is spu- 
rious, and its contents in great part fictitious, is irre- 
concilable with the moral spirit that characterizes the 
work. The presumption adverse to Baur.'s theory, 
which is raised by the author's own testimony re- 
specting himself, is confirmed by the moral tone of 
the book. It is true that every well-meaning book 
is not thereby proved to come from the writer from 
whom it pretends to emanate. Nor would we contend 
that the ideas of antiquity, and of Jewish antiquity in 
particular, in regard to this matter of authorship 
accorded in all respects with the ethical feeling of a 
modern day. 1 Apocryphal and other ancient works 
are extant, which bore the name of some revered 
person of an earlier time, and which, notwithstanding 
this groundless pretension, were designed to promote 
the cause of religion. But an elaborate outlay of 
cunning for the purpose of creating a false impression 
in respect to the real author of a book, especially 
when the motive is to promote the interests of a party, 

1 This Lekebusch frankly allows. 



GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 253 

deserves reprobation, whether the book be ancient or 
recent. An effort of this kind must always have been 
considered a piece of knavery. Where there is plainly 
discovered an earnest regard for the law of veracity, 
we are cut off from supposing anything like a pious 
fraud. In this case, we must give credit to the testi- 
mony which the book itself offers respecting its author. 
Much more are we precluded, in that case, from 
considering a large part of the narrative a deliberate 
fiction. Now there is manifest throughout the book 
of Acts a penetrating discernment of the sacredness 
of truth and the obligation of veracity. He who set 
down the record of the sin and punishment of Ananias 
and Sapphira was incapable of palming off, as a 
veritable history of the apostles and of the manner in 
which they were guided by the Holy Spirit, a series 
of fictitious stories invented by himself. Dropping 
for the moment the question of the general verity of 
the narrative, let us observe the amount of duplicity 
which the above-described theory of Zeller imputes to 
the author of the Acts. The retention of the " we " 
in a document which he has recast and recomposed — 
a retention deliberately resolved upon, we are told, 
for the sake of deceiving the reader into the belief 
that the author lived long before — is certainly equiva- 
lent, in a moral point of view, to the insertion of this 
pronoun by the writer for the same end. 1 If the 
author, writing, it is supposed, in the second century, 

1 See Lekebusch. 



254 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

were charged with inserting this word, here and there, 
in his own composition, the duplicity would not be 
worse. How foreign this refined method of self- 
advertisement is from the universal habit of apocryphal 
writers, who are apt to blazon their assumed names 
on the front of their works, will strike all who are 
acquainted with this species of literature. A writer 
capable of such a trick as is charged upon the author 
of the Acts, would almost infallibly have introduced 
the passages which contain the "we" with an explicit 
declaration that here he joined Paul, or became a 
participant in the events that follow. But the partic- 
ular point on which we now insist is the incompati- 
bility of such detestable deceit with the pure and 
truthful air of the historian, and his recognition of the 
law of veracity. 

3. An irrefragable argument for the genuineness 
and credibility of Acts is afforded by the relation in 
which it stands to the Pauline Epistles. 

The coincidences and diversities are each an im- 
pressive proof of the correctness of the old and ac- 
cepted view concerning the book. As to the former, 
the peculiarity of them, as Paley, in the Horce Paulinas, 
has very ingeniously shown, is that they are unde- 
signed. There are such correspondences with the 
data furnished by the Epistles as could not have been 
contrived, for they can only be detected by searching. 
The omissions in the Acts are an equally remarkable 
feature. We learn from the Epistles various facts of 



GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 255 

importance respecting Paul, which a writer of the 
second century would certainly have worked into a 
history or historical romance in which the Apostle was 
to figure so prominently. Thus, for example, we have 
no notice in the Acts of the sojourn of Paul in Arabia, 
shortly after his conversion, which he himself mentions 
(Gal. i. 17). Luke describes him as preaching in 
Damascus, and, " after that many days were fulfilled," 
as flying from the machinations of the Jews to Jerusa- 
lem. Eor aught that appears, the author of the Acts 
is ignorant of the fact of his visiting Arabia. But a 
later writer, with the Epistle to the Galatians in his 
hand, would not have failed to show, at least, his 
knowledge of an event so distinctly stated by the 
Apostle himself. The three shipwrecks, and most of 
the other hardships which Paul had endured (2 Cor. 
xi. 24 seq.), are not mentioned in the Acts. 1 And if 
we look at what is actually narrated by Luke, although 
Baur's theory of an inconsistency between the general 
representations of the Acts and the Epistles is false, 
yet the former shows itself an independent narrative. 
It is not built up on the basis of information derived 
from the writings of Paul. These are not made use 
of in its composition. Now, this fact demonstrates 
the early date of the Acts. Suppose that a Gentile 
Christian of the second century had conceived the plan 
of writing a work for the purpose which Baur attrib- 

1 The shipwreck recorded in the Acts was subsequent to the 
writing of this Epistle. 



256 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

utes to the author of this book : his very first act 
would have been to resort to the Epistles for the 
materials out of which to construct his work. Con- 
scious that a comparison of his production with these 
well-known documents would be inevitable, he would 
guard against the semblance of contradiction. He 
would seek throughout to dovetail his work with the 
authentic records of the apostolic age. Hence, in 
laboring to swell their list of discrepancies between the 
Acts and Paul, the Tubingen critics are unconsciously 
beating down their own theory. 

4. Baur's theory is not sustained, but is over- 
thrown, by a candid view of the contents of the Acts. 
Lekebusch has shown that the alleged parallelism in 
the career of Peter and of Paul is chiefly in the 
imagination of the critics, and that the differences »in 
their respective deeds and fortunes are vastly more 
numerous and more conspicuous than the points of 
resemblance. In truth, there are no such resem- 
blances which are not accidental and to be expected 
in the case of the two leading apostles, both of whom 
were engaged in the same work and exposed to like 
perils. That, in the Acts, Paul is said to have ad- 
dressed himself, in the places he visited, first to the 
Jews and then to the heathen, rather confirms than 
weakens the authority of Luke ; for such was unques- 
tionably the historical fact. An opposite course would 
have been in the highest degree unnatural. The 
gospel was a means of salvation " to the Jew first, 




GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 257 

and also to the Greek" (Rom. i. 16); and if Panl 
was the Apostle to the Gentiles, this meant simply that 
his field of labor was in Gentile countries. But there 
are passages in the Acts which a writer having the 
end in view which Baur imputes to the author of the 
book would never have admitted. He is, by the 
supposition, a Pauline Christian, and designs to make 
it appear that Paul was a recognized apostle, on a 
footing of perfect equality with the original disciples. 
Yet he begins, in the very first chapter, by describing 
the choice of an apostle, at the instance of Peter, to 
fill up the number of the twelve. He must be, said 
Peter, one who " has companied with us " through the 
whole life of Christ, from the baptism of John, and be 
ordained " to be a witness with us of his resurrection " 
(Acts i. 21, 22). In treating of the Apocalypse, 
Baur — without reason, as we think — regards the allu- 
sions to " the twelve " apostles as an indirect thrust 
at the Apostle Paul, and a sign of the Judaizing char- 
acter of the book. Yet here we have a Pauline Chris- 
tian falling into a similar style! A partisan of Paul, 
inventing history for the purpose of exalting his equal 
apostolic claims, it is safe to say, would never have 
introduced the passage in question. 

But let us turn to the narrative of the last visit 
of the Apostle Paul to Jerusalem — that visit which 
was so important in its results, and is so fully de- 
scribed by the author of the Acts. It is one main 

design, they say, of this author to extenuate and hide 
17 



258 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

from view the mutual opposition of the two branches 
of the Church, and to produce the impression that the 
body of Jewish Christians agree on the ritual .question 
with Paul. Now, what do we find in the midst of 
this very passage in which Paul is brought into con- 
tact with the church at Jerusalem and the Jewish 
Christians who thronged the city ? Why, James and 
the elders at Jerusalem are reported as saying to 
Paul : " Thou seest, brother, how many thousands " — 
literally myriads, juvQiccdeg — "of Jews there are which 
believe; and they are all zealous of the law;" and 
they were all jealous of Paul on account of the informa- 
tion they had received that he was in the habit of 
dissuading Jews from observing the Mosaic law and 
circumcising their children. That is, a writer, who is 
inventing and altering history for the purpose of 
hiding a fact, gives to that fact a conspicuous place in 
his narrative ! Baur has no other solution than the 
remark that the Avriter here " forgets the role he is 
playing." But the answer is, that supposing so 
shrewd a writer as he is represented to be, to forget 
anywhere the design he had in view, he could not 
forget it in the crisis of the whole history, when Paul 
met the Jewish-Christian Church for the last time, and 
when this very point of the authority of the ritual, and 
the views and feelings of the Jewish believers, is the 
theme of the narrative. 1 

1 Baur more than insinuates that the Jewish Christians took 
part in this violent attack upon Paul, and that Luke is at pains to 



GENUINENESS OE THE ACTS. 259 

We have adverted above to the manner in which 
the author of the Acts begins his work. Not less 
incompatible with the Tubingen theory is the manner 
in which he concludes. The reader must bear in 
mind that, according to Baur and Zeller, a main aim 
of the writer is to represent the Apostle in a friendly 
attitude towards his Jewish countrymen. A Gentile 
Christian holds out the olive-branch to the Jew. Bat 
how ends this " reconciling " and " pacifying " pro- 
duction? It winds up with a denunciation from Paul 
against the unbelief of the Jews, in which, using the 
stern words of the prophet Isaiah, he charges upon 
them a judicial blindness, and adds : " Be it known 
therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent 
unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." That 
is, the divine rejection of the Jews and choice of the 
Gentiles is the last word from Paul which the reader 
hears ! How would that sound in the ear of the 
zealous Judaizer whom this book was to conciliate, 
and win to the esteem of Paul and of his type of 
doctrine? Is it not plain that the "tendency" 
ascribed to this work is read into it by the critics ? 
Their interpretation is not drawn from an unprejudiced 
examination of the contents of the book, which are 
flatly inconsistent with it, but from the demands of a 

suppress the fact. If we are to believe Baur, then, the same writer 
who so flagrantly " forgets his part " as to make mention of the zeal 
of " many thousands" of believers for the law, recovers his memory 
so fully as to falsify in the very next breath ! 



260 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

preconceived, and, we believe, unfounded historical 
theory of their own contriving. 

The neglect of the writer to avail himself of the 
most natural means of promoting his alleged purpose, 
is, also, a proof that this purpose belongs only to the 
critic's brain. A single example of this negligence, un- 
accountable on Baur's theory of the design of the book, 
is the omission of the writer to bring Paul and Peter 
together in Rome, where, according to a belief then 
current, they both perished as martyrs in the Neronian 
persecution. 1 What would the writer of an irenical 
fiction lay hold of so soon, as the supposed conjunction 
of the two apostles in the capital of the world, and 
their common fate ? How easily might a tale be spun 
out of this meeting of the leaders of the two branches 
of the Church, which would effectually promote the 
author's plan ! Yet the book closes abruptly — the 
author seeming at last to hasten to the conclusion 
— with no mention of Peter's visit to Rome, con- 
nection with the Gentile capital, or interview with 
Paul. 

5. The unfitness of such a work as the book of 
Acts to secure the end for which, according to Baur, 

1 For proof that the report of Peter having suffered martyrdom 
at Kome is met with prior to the date assigned by the Tubingen 
critics to the Acts, see Gieseler's Church History ', B. I. s. 27, 1ST. 6. 
In truth, there is no sufficient reason for disbelieving the tradition 
so early and widely current. For a full examination of the point, 
see Dr. Schaff's History of the Apostolic Church, p. 372 seq. See 
also Bleek's Einl, s. 563. 






GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 261 

it was composed, stands in the way of the acceptance 
of his theory. 

Here, if we are to believe the Tubingen critics, 
was a great division in the Church. Jewish Christians, 
on the one hand, following the doctrine of Peter, re- 
quired circumcision and a compliance with the ritual 
as a condition of fellowship with the Gentile Christians. 
The latter, on the contrary, following the authority of 
Paul, as decidedly refused to yield to tins demand. 
Efforts are at length made from different sides to bring 
about an accommodation. And this writer composes 
an historical romance for the purpose of spreading 
such a conception of the apostolic history as shall 
remove, especially, the Jewish- Christian prejudice 
against communion with the heathen believers. To 
this end he represents Peter as tolerating the Gentiles 
in their uncircumcision, as taking part in the recep- 
tion of Cornelius into the Church, and as resisting the 
imposition of the yoke of ritual observances upon the 
Gentiles. But how would the judaizing party relish 
this representation of their great Apostle ? Were 
they so little wedded to their principles as to abandon 
them the moment they were told by some writer, pre- 
tending to be an associate of Paul, that their views 
relative to the course taken by Peter and in respect 
to his doctrine were contrary to the truth ? Had they 
only to be told, in a book falsely purporting to come 
from a Pauline Christian of a former day, that Peter 
really fraternized with Paul and was in favor of the 



262 PARTIES IK THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

immunity of the Gentile converts? And similar 
inquiries are pertinent when we consider how such a 
work would be received by the followers of Paul. If 
this great Apostle had, in truth, forbidden circumcision 
altogether, as the Baur school pretend, and if his 
disciples were rooted in their attachment to his 
principles, as they were certainly familiar with his 
writings, how would thev be satisfied with the narra- 
tive of the circumcision of Timothy and the other 
examples of conformity to the law, recorded in the 
Acts ? Would they not have spurned this misrepre- 
sentation of the principles and conduct of their great 
leader, and made their appeal to the very passages in 
his Epistles on which the Tubingen critics found then 
thesis as to his real position ? It is unaccountable 
that a work which flies in the face of the cherished 
opinions and traditions of the two rival parties, should 
pass uncontradicted, and even contribute to secure 
a most important change in the platforms on which 
they respectively stand. Yet this unknown writer in 
the first quarter of the second century, audaciously 
perverting the facts of history and adding incidents 
which sprung from his own invention, succeeded, if 
we are to believe the Tubingen critics, in this unex- 
ampled imposture. To this extent do these critics 
task our credulity. 

To what desperate shifts the Tubingen critics are 
driven, in their effort to read into the Acts a deep-laid 
plot which has no existence outside of their own 



GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 263 

suspicious fancy, may be seen from one or two exam- 
ples. Luke records a contention between Paul and 
Barnabas which led to their separation from each 
other. Will it be believed that he is charged by Baur 
with making this record of a comparatively "unim- 
portant " dispute, in order to divert the thoughts of 
his readers from the more serious quarrel with Peter, 
which he is desirous of covering up? As if his 
readers, with the Epistle to the Galatians in their 
hand, could be kept in ignorance of this dispute with 
Peter ! As if the allusion to one conflict could sup- 
press the recollection of another ! Why, as Lekebusch 
inquires, should he not rather pass over in silence the 
minor quarrel also, provided his aim were such as 
Baur imagines ? The earlier prominent record of the 
friendship of Paul with Barnabas, that " distinguished 
and meritorious member of the Jerusalem church," 
is attributed to the apologetic or conciliatory design 
of the author of the Acts. Yet the same author now 
describes a sharp controversy between them ! The 
simple truth is, that the conflict with Barnabas is 
mentioned because it had an influence on the history 
of the missions to the Gentiles and of the spread of 
Christianity among them, which it is the leading pur- 
pose of Luke to narrate. The controversy with Peter 
had no such influence. It was merely an example of 
the inconsistency of Peter, which Luke, if he was 
informed of it, had no occasion to record. 1 

1 See Lekebusch, s. 305. 



264 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHUPCH. 

Another illustration of that strange, morbid sus- 
picion which is a prime quality of the Tubingen 
criticism, is the charge that the journey of Paul to 
Jerusalem (Acts xi.), which the Apostle in Gal. ii. does 
not mention, was invented by Luke for the purpose 
of bringing Paul as often as possible into intercourse 
with the Jerusalem apostles ! Now if we look at 
Luke's narrative, we find that all he says of that 
journey is in one verse (v. 30) : "and they sent it 
[a contribution for the poor] to the elders by the hands 
of Barnabas and Saul." If Luke had the purpose of 
which he is accused, why should he confine himself to 
a bare mention of the fact of the journey ? Would he 
not infallibly have given details of the interview? 
Would he not, at least, have stated that Paul met the 
other apostles and conferred with them ? Would he, 
as he does, make it known that Peter, the Jewish- 
Christian leader, was at that time in prison, so that 
he and Paul could not have met ? Luke describes, 
with some detail, the occasion of the contribution. 
Agabus, one of the prophets who had come from 
Jerusalem, predicted a dearth, and the Antioch Chris- 
tians accordingly determined to send relief to their 
brethren in Judea. We are required, then, to suppose 
that Luke took pains to invent all this to serve as a 
preface to the bare, solitary remark that Saul was sent 
to Jerusalem with the money. This, says Lekebusch, 
is to make Luke build up mountains that a mouse 
may come forth. We have no warrant for supposing 



GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 265 

that Paul intended to record in Galatians all the visits 
he had made to Jerusalem. 1 In fact, we do not know 
that on the occasion referred to by Luke, in Acts xi., 
Paul entered Jerusalem. He was indeed sent with 
Silas, but, as Luke says nothing further, it is not 
improbable that he was prevented, for some reason, 
from going so far as the city. In any event, the 
treatment of this topic by Baur and his followers is a 
fair example of that hyper-criticism which finds an 
occult, and generally a bad, motive underneath the 
simplest historical statement. 

The historical discrepancies alleged to exist be- 
tween Luke and the other authorities, whether sacred 
or secular — -which discrepancies, were they made out, 
cannot be shown to imply any design, any tendency, 
on the part of the author — afford no help to the 
Tubingen cause. The consideration of them, in case 
the subject of inquiry were the nature and extent and 
the proper formula of inspiration, would be pertinent ; 
but admitting them to be insoluble, they are not suffi- 
cient to affect the general credibility of the historian, 
which is the question under discussion. - Take, for 
example, the reference to Theudas (Acts v. 36), and 
suppose him to be the same Theudas whom Josephus 
refers to (Antiq. xx. 5, 1), and that Luke is therefore 
guilty of an anachronism ; or, suppose an error in the 
reference in the Gospel to a taxing under Cyrenius 

1 irakiv (again, another time), not Seurepoi/, is the word he uses 
(v. 1). 



266 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

(Luke ii. 1), and that the cause which drew Joseph 
and the mother of Jesus to Bethlehem is mistakenly 
given — that their visit to Bethlehem was occasioned 
by some other tax, and that Luke's chronology on this 
point is at fault : would his general credibility as a 
historian be impaired? If so, there is no secular 
historian who does not fall under a like condemnation. 
There was a traditional belief that Martin Luther was 
born during a visit of his mother to a fair in Eisleben. 
The statement is found in so good an authority as 
Seckendorf, who doubtless derived it from what he 
considered an authentic source ; and after him it is 
found in a multitude of writers. It is now known, 
however, that the parents of Luther had removed 
their abode to Eisleben before the birth of Luther, and 
that no fair was held in the place at that time ! Shall 
the former historians of Luther be for this reason con- 
victed of carelessness or wilful falsification ? Or will it 
be denied, on account of their discrepancy with later 
biographies, that Luther was born in Eisleben ? This 
would be parallel to the course taken by Strauss and 
his friends, even if the chronological difficulty in Luke 
were proved to be insoluble. Macaulay attributes the 
epithet Silent, attached to the name of William, the 
founder of the Dutch Commonwealth, to his taciturn 
habit j 1 although the truth is that he had no such habit, 
and acquired this title from his prudent reticence on a 
single occasion. The same historian probably con- 

1 Macaulay's Life of William Pitt, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 






GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 267 

founded William Penn, a pardon-broker, with William 
Penn the Quaker. This may, perhaps, suggest the 
possibility of there being more than one Theudas. 
But however this may be, who will charge the Eng- 
lish historian with being careless in his researches and 
uninformed in the matters whereof he writes ? It may 
be said that in Luke the difficulty is enhanced by the 
occurrence of the reference to Theudas in a speech of 
Gamaliel. But — on the supposition, again, that an 
error here were proved — is absolute correctness in the 
report of a public speech, and in all the historical 
references it may contain, so very common ? Suppose 
that Gamaliel was known to have referred, in his 
address to the Sanhedrim, to various factions which 
had all proved to be short-lived, and that in the 
version of the speech which reached Luke, the name 
of Theudas had erroneously crept in, owing possibly 
to the circumstance that his name was often linked, in 
common speech, with that of Judas of Galilee, whom 
Gamaliel had really mentioned : we affirm that analo- 
gous examples of inaccuracy can be found in the most 
approved and trustworthy historians. These alleged 
discrepancies, and all others, should, each by itself, be 
made the subject of fair and searching investigation. 
But the apologist and the skeptic both err when the 
latter claims, and the former consents, to stake the 
credibility of the New Testament, much more the 
cause of supernatural Christianity itself, upon the 
possibility of harmonizing all minor diversities. To 



268 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

the antagonist of revelation we say, Grant that it 
cannot be done ; even grant that the sacred historians 
stand in all respects npon a level with uninspired 
writers of equal qualifications for ascertaining the 
truth and of equal integrity in communicating it ; yet 
you are as far as ever from succeeding in your attack 
upon revelation. Were it our purpose, in this Essay, 
to go beyond the special objections characteristic of 
the Tubingen school, we might dwell upon the num- 
berless allusions in the Acts to points of geography 
and history, to existing features of law and govern- 
ment, to customs and manners, most of which are 
incidental and such as only a contemporary writer 
could weave into a narrative. It is not too much to 
say that the general correctness of Luke in these 
manifold particulars has been positively established. 
The passage, for example, relating to the voyage and 
shipwreck of St. Paul, has been subjected to a most 
thorough scrutiny, and the pathway of the ship 
followed from point to point. The result is a striking 
verification of Luke's narrative. He is shown to be, 
by this passage in his narrative, an observing and 
truthful writer. 1 

1 See Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul; also the excel- 
lent Life of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson. A beautiful 
instance of Luke's candor is Acts xxi. 29. Describing the rage of the 
fanatical Jews from Asia, and their cry that Paul had introduced 
Greeks into the temple, he adds, parenthetically: "For they had 
seen before with him in the city, Trophimus, an Ephesian, whom they 
supposed that Paul had drought into the temple." The effect of this 
remark of Luke is to palliate their guilt in offering violence to Paul. 



GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. 269 

The speeches recorded by Luke in the Acts have 
been a favorite subject of skeptical attack. But the 
force of this attack is broken when it is conceded that 
the language in which the speeches are presented, is, 
generally speaking, that of the historian. Some of 
them were not made in the Greek, but in another 
tongue ; and in regard to the rest, it must be in fair- 
ness, and may be with safety, allowed that the form in 
which they are recorded is given them by Luke. This 
accounts for their resemblance in phraseology to the 
ordinary style of Luke's narrative. Ancient historians, 
as all scholars know, were in the habit of throwing 
into the direct form — the oratio directa — or the form 
of quotation, what a modern writer presents in form as 
well as in fact in his own language. But when we 
lcok at the contents of the speeches in the Acts, they 
are found to harmonize with the known characters of 
the various persons to whom they are ascribed, and 
with the circumstances in which they were severally 
uttered. As an offset to the complaint that Paul's 
peculiar doctrine is missing from his speeches, and 
from the book generally, we may put the judgment of 
Luther that the principal purpose for which the book 
was written was to " teach all Christendom the great 

They had drawn a false inference from seeing Trophiinus with Paul 
in another place. With his usual felicity, Bengel points out the 
accordance of this circumstance of Paul's association with Trophimus, 
with the Apostle's character: " Paulus Trophimum non introduxlt 
in templum : neque enim tamen plane yitavit Judaeorum causa." 
Gnomon (Acts xxi. 29). 



270 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

fundamental Christian doctrine" of justification by 
faith alone. 1 The reader has only to recall such pas- 
sages as the direction given to the trembling jailer who 
inquired what he should do to be saved, to be convinced 
of the groundless nature of this piece of criticism. 

The speeches of Paul have been made the subject 
of a special, instructive discussion from the pen of 
Tholuck. 2 The principal part of his article is taken 
up with a comparison of the farewell address of the 
Apostle to the elders of Ephesus, at Miletus, with the 
writings of Paul — the purpose being to show the 
correspondence of that address with the Apostle's 
character and modes of thought. That the reader 
may be enabled to follow out this investigation for 
himself, we furnish here a very brief outline of most 
of the points in the comparison. The address is 
contained in the twentieth chapter of Acts. Paul's 
description of his pastoral fidelity (vs. 18-21), is 
shown to harmonize strikingly with allusions to the 
same topic in 1 Thess. ii. 10 and 2 Cor. vi. 3, 4. It 
is the habit of Paul frequently to appeal to his own 
life and conduct, partly in answer to calumnies, and 
partly to excite other Christians to follow his example, 
as in 2 Cor. i. 12 ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 ; Phil. hi. 15. The 
mention of his tears, in the address (ver. 31), brings 
out a characteristic of Paul which is also discovered 
from 2 Cor. ii. 4, where the Apostle says that he wrote 
to the Corinthians with "many tears." In each case 

1 Quoted in Lekeb., s. 235. 2 In the Stud. u. EHt. } 1839, II. 



GENUINENESS OE THE ACTS. 271 

it is tears of love and of yearning over them for whose 
spiritual safety he is anxious. A little, yet striking 
mark of the authenticity of Luke's report is Paul's 
allusion (ver. 19) to what he had suffered at Ephesus 
from " the lying in wait of the Jews ; " since in his 
narrative Luke had not mentioned any such persecu- 
tion, but only the tumult raised by Demetrius. Had 
the address been invented by Luke, there would 
almost certainly be in the narrative an explanatory 
passage. In ver. 20, Paul reminds the elders of his 
preaching in private as well as in public ; which falls 
in with 1 Thess. ii. 11, and with his exhortation to 
Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 2) to preach " in season and out 
of season." His boldness in preaching and his free- 
dom from the fear of man (ver. 27), are the same 
qualities to which he adverts in 2 Cor. iv. 2 and 1 
Thess. ii. 4, professing in the last passage that he did 
not speak "as pleasing men, but God which trieth our 
hearts." In ver. 22, he anticipates persecution in 
Jerusalem; in Rom. xv. 31, he expresses the same 
fear. How accordant is the Apostle's expression of 
the cheap estimate he puts upon life, if he might 
finish the ministry committed to him by the Lord 
Jesus (ver. 24, to be compared with xxi. 13), with 
the expression of self-sacrifice in Phil. ii. 17, and of 
triumph in 2 Tim. iv. 7 ! The presage of future 
dangers to the Church (vs 29, 30) may be compared 
with 1 Tim. iv. 1, and is shown by the Epistle to the 
Ephesians to have been verified. The same diligence 



272 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

and tenderness with which he had warned the Ephe- 
sians (ver. 31), we find him claiming to have exercised 
in regard to the Thessalonians, to whom he says (1 
Thess. ii. 11), "ye know how we exhorted and com- 
forted and charged every one of you, as a father does 
his children. " The commending of the elders to God 
and the word of His grace, which was able " to build 
them up " (ver. 32), chimes with the benediction in 
Rom. xvi. 25, beginning: "Now unto Him that is 
able to establish you." In ver. 33, we hear the 
Apostle remind the elders how, coveting no man's sil- 
ver, or gold, or apparel, he had sustained himself and 
his attendants by the labor of his own hands. His 
motives for pursuing this course are not explained 
here, but must be learned from the Epistles, in 1 
Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. hi. 7-9 ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 12; 
2 Cor. xi. 8. Especially worthy of note is the expres- 
sion " these hands " — at x tL Q b $ avrcu (ver. 34) — 
words requiring us to suppose a gesture to accom- 
pany them. Still more deserving of remark is the 
quotation of a saying of Christ not elsewhere re- 
corded : " it is more blessed to give than to receive " 
(ver. 35). The saying itself is worthy to emanate 
from Christ, and is conformed to the spirit and style 
of his teaching. Coming in so simply and naturally, 
it seems to bear witness to the truth and fidelity of 
the entire report of the Apostle's discourse. 

In the preceding observations we have employed 
for the purpose of refuting the Tubingen hypothesis — 



GENUINENESS OE THE ACTS. 273 

except in the last remarks on the speeches of Paul — 
only the four Pauline Epistles accepted by Baur. But 
when we inquire for the grounds on which the 
genuineness of the remaining canonical Epistles 
ascribed to this apostle is denied, we find that the 
principal reason is the inconsistency of their repre- 
sentations with the theory which the four are supposed 
to authorize. On this ground, chiefly, even the Epis- 
tles to the Colossians and Philippians, which were 
never before doubted, and the marks of whose Pauline 
authorship are so irresistibly evident in their style and 
contents, are declared to be spurious ! One would 
think that the inconsistency of these documents with 
Baur's theory would raise in his mind a strong pre- 
sumption, not against them, but against that. But 
when we discover that his theory is overthrown by 
the testimony of the very documents on which he 
chooses to rely, and that his main objection to the 
genuineness of the other leading Epistles of Paul is 
thus taken away, we may resort to them for further 
illustration of the view which the Apostle took of the 
Jewish Christians. We find him, in the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, telling the Gentiles that they are no more 
" strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the 
saints, and of the household of God," and " built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets " 
(Eph. ii. 19, 20). How fully does this harmonize 
with the spirit of the beautiful passage in the Romans, 
where Paul compares the Gentiles, in their relation to 

18 



274 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

Israel, to the wild olive-tree grafted upon the native 
olive and partaking of its " root and fatness " (Rom. 
xi. 17) ! We find him in the 1st Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, saying: "for ye, brethren, became 
followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in 
Christ Jesus : for ye, also, have suffered like things of 
your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews " 
— the Jews, who likewise " forbid us to speak to the 
Gentiles that they might be saved " (1 Thess. ii. 14 
seq.). The Thessalonians, in the heroic spirit with 
which they had met persecution, had resembled their 
Christian brethren in Judea, whose firmness under 
such trial was well known. This one expression of 
honor to the faithful Christians of Judea, joined, as 
it is, with reprobation of the conduct of the unbe- 
lieving Jews, destroys the theory of Baur. 1 

1 The attack of the Tubingen school upon the genuineness of 
most of the Pauline Epistles, resting as it does upon false assump- 
tions, should not be allowed for a moment to affect the judgment 
wkich is founded on positive, abundant proofs. Take, for example, 
the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians. Its Pauline authorship was 
never doubted until it was doubted by Baur. It is not only re- 
cognized by the great church teachers in the second half of the 
second century, but is found in the Syrian version, in the canon 
of Muratori, even in the canon of Marcion. Its language is Pauline. 
Its tone and spirit are Pauline. Its contents are adapted to a 
state of the Thessalonian church which may well be supposed to 
have existed. It has correspondences with the Acts, which are 
obviously uncontrived, yet exact. Compare 1 Thess. hi. 1, 2 with 
Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5. And if the passage — iv. 15, 17 — express a 
hope or an expectation of the napovala during the Apostle's lifetime, 
it demonstrates the Pauline authorship, since no writer of the sec- 
ond century would attribute such a disappointed expectation to 



FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 275 

There are three other documents in the New 
Testament canon which throw important light upon the 
subject of this Essay. These are the 1st Epistle of 
Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. 

Paul. The objections of Baur to the Pauline origin of this Epistle 
are of no weight, and mainly rest upon misinterpretation. 

There are thirteen canonical Epistles hearing the name of Paul. 
No criticism — save that of the Baur school — which by any stretch of 
charity can be called sober, pretends to deny the genuineness of the 
Epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, the two Epistles to the 
Thessalonians, and the Epistle to Philemon. The Pauline authorship 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians may be said to have been completely 
vindicated against the doubts suggested by De Wette and others. In 
fact, one of the main grounds of doubt — the absence of personal 
greetings — is an argument for the genuineness of the work ; since, 
though we can only conjecture the cause of this peculiarity, it is 
one which a forger would last of all have permitted to exist. Of 
the Pastoral Epistles, the 2d of Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are 
folly proved to be Pauline, and recognized as such by unprejudiced 
critics, like Bleek and Meyer, who hold themselves at liberty to 
judge with perfect freedom of the claim of a book to a place in the 
canon. Of the 1st Epistle to Timothy, Neander says that he is not 
convinced of its genuineness with the " same assurance that he has 
in reference to the authorship of the other Pauline Epistles." Apos- 
telgeschichte, B. I. s. 538. N". Such misgivings, however, in respect 
to either of the Pastoral Epistles, are not shared by critics of equal 
candor and penetration ; for example, by the late Dr. Arnold. As 
to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, a point about which the 
opinion of the ancient Church was divided, he is now generally con- 
ceded to have been, not Paul himself, but a disciple of Paul. This 
was the opinion, also, of Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin. It is the 
view of Neander, Bleek, Meyer, and, in fact, of all or nearly all the 
German critics. Its early date is, however, established ; and if not 
written by Paul, it has the same relation to him as the writings of 
Luke have, and the same right in the canon as the second and third 
Gospels and the Acts. 



276 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

The 1st Epistle of Peter is reckoned by Eusebius 
among the Honiologoumena — the writings of undis- 
puted genuineness. Among the witnesses to its 
authenticity are Papias and Polycarp. 1 It is addressed 
apparently to the first generation of converts from 
heathenism, and not to their children or grandchildren 
(e. g. 1 Peter i. 14). It purports to come from " a 
witness of the sufferings of Christ " (1 Peter v. 1) ; a 
fact introduced so briefly and naturally as to convince 
Schleiermacher that the expression was not put into 
the mouth of Peter, but was truly his own. It is 
addressed to " the strangers scattered throughout Asia 
Minor ; " and yet the contents of the Epistle make it 
clear that Gentiles are meant ; so that in this designa- 
tion of them as dice anoqce, the metropolitan character, 
so to speak, of Judaean Christianity is assumed in a 
manner natural to Peter. It was written from Baby- 
lon — the literal, as we think, and not the mystical, 
Babylon — where Jews were so numerous, and where 
Peter would naturally be drawn in the prosecution of 
his missionary labors. A suitable occasion for his writ- 
ing was afforded by the journey of Silas (1 Peter v. 
12), formerly a member of the Jerusalem church and 
afterwards concerned with Paul in founding and train- 

1 Eusebius, iii. 39, iv. 14. Those who deny the genuineness of 
the 2d Epistle of Peter, must yet place it not later than the begin- 
ning of the second century ; and hence the testimony of thi9 docu- 
ment (2 Peter iii. 1) to the 1st Epistle, as a work of Peter, is val- 
uable. See on this and the other points of proof, Bleek's Einl., s. 
565 seq. 



EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 277 

ing the very churches to which he now carried this 
letter. In these churches there were those who, as we 
learn from Paul in his later Epistles, had, through the 
influence of Judaizers, begun to fear that they had 
not received the true gospel. Now Peter reassures 
this class by simply saying at the close of his letter : 
"I have written briefly, exhorting and testifying that 
this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand!' It is 
an expression of confidence and fraternal sympathy 
from the Apostle "to the circumcision," written 
within a few years preceding the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem and shortly before his own death. 

Another most interesting monument of the state 
of things at that critical time, is the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. It was written while the temple was yet 
standing, but not very long before the siege and cap- 
ture of the city by Titus. It was addressed to Jewish 
Christians, and, as we believe, to the Palestinian 
Christians. It was written to keep them from apos- 
tasy — from lapsing into mere Judaism. This, every 
one must see, was the great danger so long as the 
Jewish Christians continued to cling to the ritual. It 
would seem that there were some of this class who had 
ceased to meet with their brethren (Hebrews x. 25). 
It is probable that with the rapid growth of the Gentile 
branch of the church, which was attended by a grow- 
ing indifference to the ceremonial law still sacred to 
the native Jew, the disaffection of the Jewish Christians 
increased ; and it is not improbable that in that class 



278 PAETIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH 

who are described as " forsaking the assembling of 
themselves together " is to be recognized the germ of 
heretical judaizing sects which become known to us at a 
later day. The great aim of the author of the Epistle 
is to persuade the Jewish Christian that in Christ the 
ritual is fulfilled ; that in Him all that he had in the 
law is retained in a perfect and satisfying form. 

Not less interesting as a memorial of the state of 
things which we are attempting to depict, is the 
Apocalypse. The Apocalypse was written — this fact, 
we take it, is now established, notwithstanding the 
continued dissent of a critic here or there — shortly 
after the Neronian persecution, and shortly before the 
destruction of Jerusalem. The Apostles Peter and 
Paul had been put to death. The bitter fanaticism of 
the Jews and all the signs of the times foretokened 
the judgments soon to fall upon the Jewish state. The 
condition of the churches in Asia Minor, coupled, we 
may well believe, with the persecuting animosity of his 
countrymen "according to the flesh" in Jerusalem, 
had drawn the Apostle John to Ephesus. The pre- 
ponderance of proof, in our opinion, is in favor of the 
more common opinion that the Apostle is the author 
of the Apocalypse. But if not his work, it was 
certainly written by some one who belonged to his 
school and his neighborhood. Baur, who holds that 
the Apostle himself wrote it, has most unsuccessfully 
attempted to find in it a judaizing and anti-Pauline 
character. The distinction put upon the twelve apos- 



THE APOCALYPSE. 279 

ties (Rev. xxi. 14) is one of his arguments. If this 
have any force, then Acts was written by a Judaizer 
(see Acts i. 21 seq.) ; and Luke's Gospel also (see 
Luke xxh. 30), which Baur considers especially Pauline 
in its spirit. Baur even discerns in the reference to 
false or pretended apostles (Rev. ii. 2) a side hit at 
Paul ! Ewald, with just as little reason, considers 
thern Judaizers. It is probable that they were leaders 
of the iSTicolaitans, who seem to have been a sect of 
antinomian, gnostical libertines — abusing their freedom 
in the gospel by joining the heathen in licentious 
pleasures, and blending a sort of gnosis, which the 
writer designates a knowing of " the depths of Satan " 
(Rev. hi. 24) ; using, perhaps, the term Satan, as in 
the other phrase — the synagogue of Satan — where 
tliey would use God. A judaizing spirit is inferred by 
Baur from the distinct mention of the " hundred and 
forty and four thousand" from the tribes of Israel 
(Rev. vii. 4) who were among the redeemed. How 
ill-founded is this conclusion we see when we further 
read that those gathered from " all nations, and kin- 
dreds, and people, and tongues," instead of being a 
definite, symbolical to be sure, yet limited, number, 
were " a great multitude which no man could count " 
(ver. 9). But the Apocalypse affords a happy con- 
firmation of the historical truth of the apostolic conven- 
tion. Having alluded (Rev. ii. 20) as he had done 
before (ver. 14) to the obligation to abstain from forni- 
cation and from meat sacrificed to idols, the writer 



280 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

adds (vs. 24, 25), " I will put upon you none other bur- 
den : but that which ye have already " — namely, the 
true faith — " hold fast till I come." Here the context 
requires us to suppose that " burden " signifies injunc- 
tion ; and thus we are obliged to explain the passage 
by referring back to what he has said on the two 
points of duty above mentioned. In the requirement 
to abstain from fornication and from flesh offered to 
idols, he would add no other burden — aXXo fiaQog — 
the very word used in the rescript of the apostolic con- 
vention (Acts xv. 21) ! * To our mind, this passage 
affords a striking corroboration of the narrative of 
Luke. A portion of the Asia Minor Christians had 
neglected the warnings of Paul, had abused their free- 
dom, making it an obedience to lust, and had mingled 
with the heathen in their licentious feasts. Hence the 
need of imposing the old restraints, and the Apostle 
revives the rules suggested by that early conference in 
which he had himself taken part. 

We may sum up in a few words the main points 
in the view we have taken. The apostles and most 
other Jewish Christians kept up the observance of the 
ceremonial law, and felt bound so to do until Christ 
should appear to abrogate that law, or in some other 
way should explicitly declare the old ritual abolished. 
Peter was divinely instructed in the affair of Cornelius, 

1 The interpretation we have given above is sanctioned by high 
critical authority, including that of Lunemann (in Meyer) and 
Afford. 



THE APOCALYPSE. 281 

that free intercourse with the Gentile convert was no 
sin. This lesson by him was not forgotten. At 
Antioch he ate with the Gentile believers, except when, 
under temptation, he was false to his convictions. The 
Jewish believers, seeing that the Gentiles had actually 
become Christians and received the Spirit without hav- 
ing been circumcised, cordially and thankfully acknowl- 
edged them as brethren, and refused to yield to the 
judaizing faction which required that they should be 
circumcised. At the same time there was a difficulty 
in overstepping the legal restrictions upon intercourse 
with them as long as the law continued to be observed. 
They could not cast aside all these restrictions without 
casting aside the law itself — a step for which they were 
not prepared. Hence the door was open for the efforts 
of the active party of Judaizers. These efforts, how- 
ever, had not the sympathy or countenance of "the 
pillars " of the Jewish-Christian church. The funda- 
mental error of Baur, as we believe, is the doctrine that 
the Jerusalem apostles required the circumcision of the 
Gentile co?iverts. In supporting this error, he is 
obliged not only to attack the genuineness of the Acts 
and the moral character of the author, but also to do 
violence to the positive testimony of Paul himself in 
Gal. ii. The progress of the Gentile church led to the 
sharpening of the opposition from the side of the 
judaizing party, and probably to an augmentation of 
its strength. Only great providential events could 
clear the Christian Church of its connection with the 



282 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

Old Testament system. These events at length came ; 
first, the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, after the Jew- 
ish Christians had mostly fled to the neighborhood of 
the Dead Sea : then, after the insurrection by Bar- 
chochebas, the absolute prohibition by Hadrian (a. d. 
135) of the temple- worship in the city, to which he 
gave the Roman name of iElia Capitolina. This last 
event was the crisis that' determined the fate of Jewish 
Christianity. Henceforward only a church on Gentile 
foundations could exist in Jerusalem. That portion 
of the former church which could not abandon the 
ritual became resolved into the heretical sect which 
lingered for centuries under the name of Ebionites, but 
consisting of two main subdivisions — one that of Ebio- 
nites proper, who refused to recognize the Gentiles as 
Christians ; the other that of the Nazarenes, who clung 
with patriotic attachment to the ceremonies of the law, 
not denying, however, the Christianity of the Gentiles 
for not joining them in its observance. The head- 
quarters of the Ebionite party was the region on the 
eastern border of Palestine, whither the Jewish Chris- 
tians had originally taken refuge. The apostasy which 
to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was an 
imminent danger, actually occurred in the case of no 
small fraction of the Jerusalem church. And thus the 
saying of the Apostle John had a new and pathetic 
verification : " He came unto his own, and his own 
received him not." 



ESSAY V. 

BAUE ON EBIONITISM AND THE ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC 
CHRISTIANITY. 

The rise of the ancient Catholic church, that 
church, which, with its unity in doctrine and creed, 
its type of theology too legal to be strictly Pauline, and 
its hierarchical order, emerges to view in the latter half 
of the second century, is one of the most interesting 
problems of history. If we take our stand at the time 
of Irenaeus, we find that genuine Christianity begins 
to be recognized as confined to one visible body, having 
for its great centres the churches supposed to be 
founded by the apostles, among which Rome, the see 
of Peter and of Paul, especially of Peter the head of 
the apostles, has the preeminence in dignity and 
respect — the potiorem principalitatem, to use the 
phrase by which Irenaeus affirms the distinguished 
reliability of its traditions. 1 Beyond the pale of this 
Catholic church there is no salvation. The outlying 
parties have no title to the blessings of the gospel. 
The church is comparatively pure in doctrine and free 
in government ; yet the incipient and germinant Papal 
system is clearly discernible. 



284 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

By what steps did simple, unorganized, apostolic 
Christianity attain to this new form ? What agencies 
effected the transformation ? Such is the problem to 
which we refer. It involves the whole question of the 
character of the Christianity of the apostolic age, as 
well as the nature of the changes it afterwards under- 
went. It has drawn to itself of late, in particular 
since the rise of the new Tubingen school of historical 
critics, the zealous attention of scholars. 

One principal topic, the consideration of which 
involves the most important inquiries connected with 
the whole subject, is Ebionitism. Ebionitism is the 
general designation of that judaizing Christianity 
which existed during the first centuries, in several 
distinct parties, in separation from the Catholic 
church. The strict Ebionites — the vulgar Ebionites, 
as they are called in the classification of some German 
writers — not only observed the Mosaic ritual, but 
refused to fellowship any who failed to do likewise. 
The Nazarenes, another party, though observing the 
law themselves, willingly left the Gentiles to the enjoy- 
ment of their freedom. The former party was hostile 
to Paul and his doctrine ; the latter was not. Both 
made use of Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the 
Gospel of Matthew, differing somewhat, however, from 
that Gospel, as they differed somewhat from each 
other. There was a third party, also, of theosophic or 
gnostical Ebionites, described by Epiphanius and 
represented in the Clementine Homilies, a spurious 



EBIONITISM. 285 

work of the latter part of the second century. It is 
an old and often-repeated assertion that primitive, 
apostolic Christianity — that Christianity which was 
established and fostered by the immediate followers 
of Christ — was Ebionite. This proposition was 
maintained by Socinian writers of a former day, who, 
considering the Ebionites to have been Unitarians, 
inferred that the early Christians held the humanita- 
rian view of Christ's person. Hence the character 
and opinions of the Ebionite parties come up for 
discussion in the polemical writings of Bull, who 
combats the views of Zwicker, and in the spirited 
controversy, in the last century, of Horsley with 
Priestley. The subject was handled in a special 
dissertation by Mosheim, in an early essay of great 
merit by Gieseler, and has been further illustrated by 
Neander and the other masters in the department of 
church history. Of late the historical speculations of 
Baur have provoked new and fruitful investigations in 
the same field, and have called forth numerous publica- 
tions, both from his followers and opponents. 

In stating the theory of Baur upon this subject 
and upon early Christianity in general, we may remark 
at the outset that he agrees with the old Socinians in 
the statement that the Jewish Christianity of the 
apostolic age was Ebionite. But, unlike them, he 
holds that we find within the canon a great departure 
from, and advance upon, this humanitarian doctrine 
of Christ's person. He professes to discern in the 



286 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

New Testament the consecutive stages of a progress, 
which, beginning with the Unitarian creed, terminates 
in the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity. To be 
sure, a considerable portion of these canonical writings, 
including all those which contain this last tenet, he 
pronounces post-apostolic and spurious. But he 
differs very widely from the Socinians in his exegesis 
of them, and approximates nearer, especially in regard 
to the sense of the writings of John, to the ordinary 
orthodox interpretations. Baur's general theory 
proceeds on the foundation of the hostility conceived 
to exist, in the apostolic age, between the Pauline and 
Petrine parties. In the study of the Epistles to the 
Corinthians, he supposed himself to have discovered 
that the long prevalent idea of the relation of Paul to 
the rest of the apostles, and of his doctrine to theirs, is 
mistaken ; and for this new view he found support, as 
he thought, in the Epistle to the Galatians. 1 While 
the original apostles insisted that the Gentile converts 
should be circumcised and keep the law, Paul looked 
on circumcision as involving a forfeiture of the benefits 
of the gospel. Baur carries out his novel thesis with 
relentless consistency. He denies the Pauline author- 
ship of all of the epistles usually ascribed to Paul, 
except four, and the genuineness of all the other books 
of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. The 

1 For an interesting account of the growth of his critical theory 
in his own mind, see Baur's posthumous GescMcMe des ISitn. Jahrh., 
s. 395 seq. 



baur's theory. 287 

Gospels, as to a part of their contents, are either 
monuments of this great division in the Church, or of 
the attempts to heal it. The Gospel of John is a 
fictitious product of the early part of the second 
century. The Acts is the work of a Pauline Chris- 
tian of about the same date, who misrepresents the 
apostolic history for the sake of reconciling to each 
other the partisans of Peter and of Paul. At the close 
of the apostolic age, or at the death of these lead- 
ers, the Church had been left in this divided state. 
The Gentile or Pauline Christians, and the Jewish 
Christians, formed two opposing camps. 1 

We cannot enter into a detailed refutation of these 
fundamental positions of Baur, without repeating what 
we have said in another place. The assumption that 
the older apostles required that the heathen converts 
should be circumcised, and that Paul directly resisted 
the observance of the law by Jewish Christians as 
inconsistent with the Christian faith, is unproved and 
groundless. The mutual alienation of the Jerusalem 
apostles on the one hand, and of Paul on the other, is 
a figment of the imagination ; as is shown by the 
direct testimony of Paul himself in documents which 
even Baur admits to be his. 2 The main objection to 
the credibility of the Acts is thus annulled. The 
positive proof of the genuineness of this book, as well 

1 For the full and final statement of Baur's positions, see his 
ChrisUnthum in d. drei ersten Jahrh., 2 A. 1860. 

2 Gal. ii. 9, 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 9, xvl 1, et al. 



288 ORIGIN OE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

as of the rejected epistles of Paul, is abundant. The 
historical speculations of the Tubingen school, being 
built upon a false foundation, fall of themselves. 
There were, indeed, strong peculiarities belonging 
severally to the two branches of the Church in the 
lifetime of Paul ; but with the exception of the 
judaizing party, there was no hostility between* them. 
On the contrary, especially among the leaders, there 
was a cordial fellowship. 

But at present we are concerned with the Tubin- 
gen theory so far as it relates to the Church of the 
sub-apostolic age. Baur pretends that after the death 
of Paul, there ensued the process of reconciliation 
between the two belligerent parties, to promote which, 
as wx have explained above, most of the New Testa- 
ment books were contrived. The Jewish Christians 
gave up circumcision, being satisfied with baptism, 
when regarded as necessary for salvation. Exactly 
how and when this remarkable step was taken, we 
are not informed. But most of the concessions were 
from the Pauline side. In fact, there occurred at the 
end, or before the end, of the apostolic age, a reaction 
of the Jewish Christianity, which with Baur is iden- 
tical with the judaizing or Ebionite element, and this 
type of Christianity prevailed through the larger part 
of the second century. In the church of Asia Minor, 
little or no value was set upon the authority and the 
doctrine of Paul, which were supplanted by the 
Ebionite views of Christianity. The same was true 



BAURS THEORY. '2^9 

of the Roman church, which Bam claims to have 
been, even at the beginning, chiefly composed of 
believing Jews. The diffusion and reception of the 
doctrine of the authority of tradition, of legal justifica- 
tion, of the saving efficacy of rites, of the superior 
merit of ascetic piety, of the clergy as a priestly class, 
of the primacy of Peter, and of other elements of 
Catholic theology, the Tubingen critics attribute to 
the great reaction and partial triumph of the Jewish- 
Christian, anti-Pauline party. So tenacious of life, 
we are told, was Judaism, that the powerful influence 
of the Apostle Paul was, to a large extent, neutralized 
and overcome by the revived power of the judaical 
element hi the Church. Not that the Pauline element 
was ineffective. It was not without its representatives, 
and played a not unimportant part in the ferment 
from which Catholic theology resulted. Of course, 
these views of Baur affect his construction of the 
history of the doctrines concerning the Person of 
Christ and the Trinity. The first view of the Church 
respecting Christ was humanitarian. Then followed, 
according to Baur, the other form of Monarchianism, 
the Patripassian theory. The Logos doctrine was the 
intermediate, compromising theology, which was finally 
developed into the dogma of the Saviour's true and 
proper divinity, and the Xicene formulary. 1 

The topics which we propose to examine in the 

1 On this branch of Baur's theory, besides his " Christianity in the 
first Three Centuries," which has been referred to above, see his 
19 



290 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

remarks that follow, are, first, the alleged Ebionite 
character of the period immediately subsequent to 
the apostolic age, and then, in particular, Baur's 
representation of the early doctrine concerning 
Christ. 

I. One marked vice of the Tubingen critics is the 
habit of attributing to a distinctly Jewish-Christian 
party or influence phenomena which more commonly 
originate in other causes. The tendency to regard 
Christianity as a system of laws, is not peculiar to the 
Jews and to Judaism alone. This tendency develops 
itself in other ages, even within the bounds of 
Protestant Christianity. Hence, when this spirit 
appears in an early Christian writer, to charge it 
forthwith to Ebionitism is an obvious fallacy. The 
same may be said of the overvaluing of external rites. 
A tendency to formalism may spring up independently 
of Jewish influences ; in the nineteenth century as 
well as the third, in modern Oxford as well as ancient 
Rome. To say that religious phenomena, because 
they resemble each other, are historically connected, is 
a rash, and frequently unfounded, inference. This 
neglect to discriminate between what springs from a 
distinctively judaic party, and what merely bears some 
likeness to judaic principles, but only indicates an 

extensive work on the History of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Die 
Christl. LeJire v. d. Dreieiniglceit v. Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer 
geschichtlichen EntwicM. (1841), B. I. ; and his Dogmengeschichte, 
2 A. (1858), s. 104-112, 126-130. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 291 

analogous way of thinking, runs through much of 
the Tubingen criticism, as we shall hereafter illustrate. 
But what are the proofs by which Baur would 
subvert the established views of early Christian history 
and verify his own hypothesis ? In following the 
Tubingen critics through their classification of the 
ancient writers, we are constantly struck with the 
arbitrary character of the procedure. To make out 
that the Ebionite type of doctrine belongs to an early 
Father, they are under the necessity of ignoring 
expressions which are at war with such a view, and 
of magnifying the significance of artless phrases to 
which no emphasis is properly attached. One sign 
of the justice of our remark is the fact that these 
critics differ so widely among themselves in respect 
to the place to be assigned to the different writers — 
even to such a writer as Justin Martyr. Baur is 
constantly obliged to mediate between his two 
disciples, Schwegler and Ritschl, and to interpose 
the weight of his decision where these younger doctors 
disagree. Let us examine the proofs and witnesses 
which are adduced to establish the predominantly 
Ebionite character of the early Church. Even Cle- 
ment of Rome, or the first epistle which bears Ms name, 
but which, wholly without reason, is denied by the 
Tubingen critics to be genuine, is made to stand on a 
neutral or half-way position between the Ebionite and 
Pauline doctrine — Clement, who speaks of justification 
as " not by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or 



292 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

knowledge, or piety, or the works which we have done 
in the holiness of our hearts; but by that faith by 
which God Almighty has justified all men from the 
beginning ; :) l who alludes to the epistle which " the 
blessed Paul the apostle had written to the Corinthians 
before ; " 2 and whose view of Christ is so dissonant 
in spirit from that of the Ebionite ! It is true that 
he associates Peter, as a martyr to be held in honor, 
with Paul. 3 And why should he not ? It is true 
that Clement lays stress upon the practical duties of 
Christians, and often connects obedience with faith. 4 
But the reason of this is found in the disturbed state 
of the Corinthian church, and the disaffection towards 
its officers. 5 Whoever will read the epistle from 
beginning to end will see that here is the motive for 
the enforcing of practical obligations, in conjunction 
with passages obviously derived, though not verbally 
cited, from the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Papias, in the fragments cited by Eusebius, is 
another of Baur's witnesses for the Ebionitism of the 
early Church. It is thought to be highly significant 
that in the scriptural books which are mentioned by 
Eusebius as having been cited by Papias, the Pauline 
epistles are not found ; nor is it stated that Papias 
made mention of Paul. As if Eusebius professed to 
give all the canonical books to which Papias made 
reference, or Papias made reference to all the canonical 

1 C. 32. 2 0. 47. 3 0. 5. 

4 0. 10, 11, 12, et passim. 5 See 0. 1, 48, etc. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 293 

books which he received ! Of Polycarp, in like 
manner, Eusebius says that he made use, in his Epistle 
to the Philippians, of the 1st Epistle of Peter; 1 but 
we know, though Eusebius does not mention the fact, 
that he also made abundant use of the Epistles of 
Paul. 2 Eusebius had reasons of his own for specifying 
certain books in these allusions to the use of the 
Scriptures by earlier writers. We are not authorized 
to suppose that he intends to give an exhaustive list. 
The insinuation of a hostility to Paul on the part of 
Papias hardly merits a serious refutation. If he did 
not explicitly mention this apostle in his " Exposition 
of the Oracles of the Lord "■ — and whether he did or 
not we have no means of deciding — it would not be 
strange, since his aim was to gather up unrecorded 
reminiscences of the life and teachings of Jesus. His 
chiliasm, or millenarianism, is very far from proving 
him an Ebionite. He shared this doctrine not only 
with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, but even with 
Barnabas, whom all the skeptical writers put on the 
Pauline side. Although chiliasm cannot be shown to 
have been the universal belief of the Church in the 
next age after the apostles, it was, without doubt, a 
very widely diffused opinion. It is not at all confined, 
however, to writers of a single school. In truth, as 
Dorner has clearly shown and we may stop here to 
observe, chiliasm, whatever may have been the first 

1 Euseb., Lib. iv. c. 14. 

2 See, for example, in Polyc. ad Philip., c. v. (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10). 



294 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

source of the belief, was widely diverse from the 
current Jewish expectation of a temporal reign of the 
Messiah. 1 The earthly reign of Christ after the second 
advent, even in the view of those inclined to conceive 
of the millennial period in too material a way, was a 
limited time, and was to be followed by a spiritual, 
heavenly life, to continue forever. But — to return to 
Papias — we need no other proof that he was not an 
Ebionite and had no inimical feeling towards Paul, 
than his friendship with Polycarp, 2 and the circum- 
stance that Irenaeus, and Eusebius after him, with the 
writings of Papias before them, have no quarrel with 
him, except that Eusebius, as we should expect, 
objects to his chiliastic notions, and considers him, 
probably on account of them, a man of limited under- 
standing. 3 Indeed, the circumstance which Eusebius 
mentions, that Papias made use of testimonies from 
the 1st Epistle of John and the 1st Epistle of Peter, is 
of itself conclusive against the Tubingen judgment 
concerning him. 

Still more reliance is placed by Baur and his 
followers on the evidence drawn from the fragments 
of Hegesippus. This earliest historian of the Church 
came to Borne about the middle of the second century. 
He was an Ebionite, it is claimed ; and as he had 

1 Dorner's EntwicTcelungsgeschichte d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, 
B. I. s. 240 seq. See especially s. 240, N. 76. 

2 Irenaeus calls Papias a friend (Jralpos) of Polycarp. 

3 Euseb., Lib. iii. c. 39. 



REFUTATION OF BAUH. 295 

travelled extensively for the purpose of visiting the 
churches, and had found them, according to his own 
statement, agreeing in doctrine, it is confidently 
asserted that the churches east and west, including 
the Roman church, which he especially commends, 
were also Ebionite. This deduction might be just, 
were the premise established. But what is the proof 
that Hegesippus was an Ebionite ? In the first place, 
much is made of the description, quoted by Eusebius, 
of the character of James, the head of the church at 
Jerusalem, in which he is made out a punctilious 
observer of ceremonies. 1 That this fictitious por- 
traiture accords with Ebionite taste, is granted. It 
is probable, however, that Hegesippus derived it from 
an Ebionite tradition. That he himself followed such 
a pattern of life, there is no more reason to think 
than there is to suppose the same of Gregory Nazian- 
zen, who gives a similar description of Peter, and 
Clement of Alexandria, who gives a similar description 
of Matthew, both of which were also probably bor- 
rowed from Ebionite sources. 2 But Hegesippus 
reports that in every city " the doctrine prevails 
according to what is declared by the law, and the 
prophets, and the Lord ; " 3 and this statement is 
seized upon as an undoubted sign of Ebionitism in 
the author ! Hegesippus was zealous against the 

1 Euseb., Lib. ii. c. 23. 

2 See Schliemann, Die Clementinen, s. 429. 

3 Euseb., Lib. iv. c. 22. 



296 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

Gnostics, and this mention of the Old Testament, 
which, however, would not be remarkable in any case, 
was very natural, it being a part of his testimony to 
the freedom of the churches from the taint of gnostical 
heresy. 

But there is another passage from Hegesippus 
which was quoted by the Monophysite, Stephen Go- 
barus, and is found in Photius, in which he says that 
those who affirm that " eye hath not seen nor ear 
heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man, the 
good things prepared for the just," maintain what is 
false and that this declaration is itself foolish. Here, 
we are assured by the Tubingen critics, is a direct 
condemnation of an expression of the Apostle Paul, 
and a condemnation of the apostle himself. Sup- 
posing Hegesippus to be quoted right, it is still not 
easy to judge of the real intent of a passage which is 
thus torn from its connection. There is little reason 
to doubt, hoAvever, that Hegesippus is attacking a 
gnostical interpretation or application of the passage, 
as was long ago conjectured. In the sense in which 
the Gnostics employed the expression, he might call it 
foolish. That he could not have designed to attack a 
statement of Paul, is demonstrated, first by the 
circumstance that Paul himself quotes the passage in 
question from Isaiah, and a censure of the apostle 
would involve a rebuke of the prophet ; and, secondly, 
by the fact that in Clement's epistle to the Corin- 
thians, which is approved by Hegesippus, this identical 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 297 

passage of Scripture is also found. 1 Hegesippus is, 
rather, a witness against Baur's theory. He says 
that the Church was united and unpolluted by heresy 
until the apostles and the generation taught by them 
had passed away. 2 How does this accord with the 
idea that the church of the apostolic age was rent in 
twain, and that Paul was considered then by the 
Jewish Christians to be a leader of heresy ? "If there 
were any at all," adds Hegesippus, " that attempted to 
subvert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they 
were yet skulking in dark retreats." The surmise of 
Baur, that this expression relates to Paul, is so plainly 
a desperate effort to escape from a difficulty, that it 
requires no answer. How far from Ebionitism 
Hegesippus was, though probably a Hebrew Christian 
by birth, is evinced by his tracing even the gnostical 
heresies to a Jewish origin, by his approval of Cle- 
ment's epistle to the Corinthians, and by his testimony 
that the church of Corinth, to which Clement wrote, 
had " continued in the true faith." The same thing 
is proved incontrovertibly to the sober student of 
history by the simple fact that Eusebius, himself 
hostile to Ebionitism, and surely not less able to 
detect its presence than any critic of the Tubingen 
school, and with the whole work of Hegesippus before 
him, speaks of this old writer with entire respect and 
approbation. 

Against Hernias the charge of Ebionitism can be 

1 Clement's I. Cor. c. xxxiv. 2 Euseb., Lib. iii. c. 32. 



298 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

made with more plausibility ; but even with reference 
to him it cannot be sustained. Although he does in 
terms make faith the parent of all Christian virtues, 
yet in his far-fetched and long-drawn allegories the 
gospel is generally presented in a legal aspect, as a 
system of commands, on obeying which salvation 
hinges. Moreover the idea of fasting as a meritorious 
act, and a general tendency to asceticism, correspond to 
certain features of Ebionitism. But we have here to 
reiterate the observation that was made before, that 
legalism and asceticism spring up in the Church from 
other causes than the influence of Judaism. Such is 
the fact in the case of Hennas and of the Church in 
the second century so far as it sympathized with his 
type of thinking. In Hennas there is no exaltation of 
the Jews as a nation, no recognition of their national 
pretensions, no ascription to them of a preeminence in 
privileges and hopes. Hence, however he may resem- 
ble the Ebionites in sundry points of doctrine, he is 
wholly distinct from them in historical position. A 
decisive proof that Hennas is not an Ebionite, is the 
doctrine he holds concerning Christ, to whom he 
attributes preexistence and a part in the creation of 
the world. Another very striking proof of the same 
thing — a proof that his ritualism did not spring from 
an Ebionite root — is his notion that the Old Testament 
saints will have to be baptized by the apostles in the 
underworld, in order to be saved ! l 

1 Pastor Eermae, Liber III. Simil. ix. 16. " Hernias male intel- 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 299 

We come now to the main prop of the Tubingen 
criticism, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. There 
existed from the beginning of the second century, in 
parts of Palestine and the neighborhood, a Jewish- 
Christian party called Elkesaits, They were composed 
of Ebionite sectaries, who had probably fallen under 
the influence of the Essenes, and whose creed was a 
compound of their old belief and their newly-gained 
ascetic tenets. 1 The Spirit of God had united itself, 
they held, with Adam, constituting thus the true 
prophet, and afterwards with a series of individuals — ■ 
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus — - 
who all taught in substance the same truth. Chris- 
tianity was thus regarded as the restoration of the 
primeval religion, with which, also, primitive and pure 
Judaism was identical. The Elkesaits abjured the 
eating of flesh, and discarded sacrifices, which were 

ligens verba Apostoli I Petr. 3. 19 haec scripsisse videtur," says 
Hefele in his note, p. 424. 

1 Gieseler attributes the theosophic ingredients of the Elkesait 
system to the influence of, the Essenes. Schliemann, following 
Meander, would account for the same by the fusion of oriental 
elements with Judaism. But according to Meander, as G-ieseler 
points out, Essenism itself is partly the product of this very fusion. 
See Gieseler's K. G., B. I. § 32. n. 9. 

The best edition of the Homilies is that of A. Dressel (1853). 
This edition contains the last two Homilies, which are not found in 
the edition of Cotelerius. A very thorough monogram on the whole 
subject of the Pseudo-Clementine writings is "Die Clementinen " 
of A. Schliemann (1844). Uhlhorn, the author of a later work on 
the same subject, gives a condensed statement of his views in Her- 
zog's Eeal-Encyc, Art. Clementinen. 



300 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

held to have come in through a corruption of the true 
religion. They advocated the obligation to renounce 
riches. The forgiveness of sins was procured by 
baptism, which, as it would appear, was often 
repeated. They rejected, among other scriptures, the 
Pauline Epistles. 

The Pseudo-Clementine ' Homilies, which were 
written by some Roman towards the end of the second 
century, bring forward, with additions and modifica- 
tions, the same tenets. The work falsely pretends to 
emanate from Clement, the first bishop of the Roman 
church after the apostles, who, being confounded, 
doubtless, with Flavius Clement, the relative of Do- 
mitian, is represented as a cultivated Roman of rank. 
Impelled by a thirst for truth, which he had sought in 
vain, he journeys to the east, and through the agency 
of Barnabas is introduced to Peter, whose instruction 
fully satisfies his mind, and who is made, in the room 
of Paul, the real apostle to the Gentiles, the founder 
and first bishop of the Roman church. Peter is 
portrayed as the antagonist of all sorts of errors, 
especially of the Gnostics in the person of Simon 
Magus. He combats, also, Chiliasm, the Hypostatic 
Trinity, and Montanism. Paul, though not mentioned 
by name, is made the adversary of Peter, and is 
regarded with hostility. Peter is made to teach the 
Elkesait doctrine of a primitive religion which was 
afterwards corrupted ; of the identity of the true 
Mosaic system with Christianity ; of the seven men, 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 301 

together with Jesus, in whom the true prophet was 
manifest ; of opposition to sacrifices, abstinence from 
eating flesh, voluntary poverty, and frequent fasts and 
baptisms. In conjunction with these views, other 
notions are found. The earthly kingdom with Satan, 
its head, is set in antithesis to the heavenly kingdom, 
both forming together a pair ; and a similar contrast 
or coupling is carried, in a series, through the whole 
history of the world and of man. Thus, Adam was 
endowed with all intellectual and moral gifts, but from 
him proceeded the woman, the source of sensuousness 
and weakness. So, along with the true prophet, false 
prophets are always found to pervert the truth. The 
hierarchical theory is decidedly supported, but chili- 
asm is opposed. Interwoven with the work is a not 
unattractive story, embracing the personal fortunes of 
Clement ; and the whole is commended to credence 
by accompanying vouchers : a letter of Peter entrust- 
ing his discourses to James at Jerusalem, who is 
represented as the head-bishop of the whole Church ; 
an attestation that the trust was faithfully discharged 
by James ; and a letter of Clement to James, purport- 
ing to be written after the death of Peter, and trans- 
mitting the work which Clement had composed by his 
direction. 

At a later period, it seems to have been thought 
that the Homilies were a work actually composed by 
Clement, but corrupted and interpolated by heretics. 
Accordingly, early in the third century, some one, 



302 ORIGIN Or CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

probably an Alexandrian, undertook to clear them 
of supposed interpolations and restore them to the 
original form. The product was the so-called Recog- 
nitions of Clement. The Epitome is the result of a 
still later revision. 1 

Strange to say, the Clementine Homilies, a spu- 
rious production, the work of an unknown writer, and 
abounding in fantastic, anti-Christian ideas which 
could never have gained the assent of a sober-minded 
Christian, is made by Baur a sort of text-book for the 
illustration of the opinions of the Roman church, and 
of the churches generally, in the second century. Its 
authority is deemed sufficient, on many points, to 
outweigh the testimony of the approved writers who 
have heretofore been depended on by scholars of all 
theological affinities. Because this work is Ebionite 
and anti-Pauline, such must have been the prevailing 
Christianity of the time ! 

But the Clementine Homilies represented the 
opinions of an individual and not the sentiments of 
any important body of Christians. Not until after the 
Homilies were written did the party whose notions 
were, to a considerable extent, embodied in them, 
obtain adherents in Asia Minor, Cyprus, or Rome. 
Hence Origen, who was acquainted with the church 
at Rome, as well as with the churches elsewhere, 
speaks of this party as having " lately arisen/' 2 The 

1 See Gieseler's K. #., B. I. s. 285. 
8 Origen in Euseb., Lib. vi. c. 38. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 303 

most plausible and best supported hypothesis which 
we have met with, concerning the origin of this unique 
work, is that presented by Gieseler. The Roman 
church, as is well known, in the early centuries was 
far more practical than speculative. Instead of 
originating theological discussions, it gave a hearing 
to the more intellectual and versatile theologues of the 
East. In the second century in particular, Rome was 
the place to which theological sectaries resorted in 
order to gain, if possible, countenance from the 
influential church of the metropolis. In such a state 
of things it was natural that many should become 
unsettled in their faith and unable to satisfy them- 
selves upon disputed questions. Among these was a 
young Roman, educated in philosophy, who deter- 
mined to resort to Palestine, and seek for the truth 
among the remnants of the original, Judaean church. 
Falling in with the Elkesaits, he conceived himself to 
possess in their tenets a satisfactory system, and one 
on which divergent parties could be united. In 
opposing Gnostics and other parties with whom the 
Elkesaits had not come in contact, he was naturally 
led to amplify and modify the doctrine which he had 
learned, and to blend with it the results of his own 
speculation. This mode of accounting for the Homilies 
has the merit of being consistent with the known 
facts, and the bare statement of it will suggest how 
entirely exaggerated is the Tubingen estimate of the 
significance of the work. 



304 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

The method which these critics adopt in dealing 
with the authorities from which the early history of the 
Church is to be deduced, we may illustrate by a 
modern parallel. Towards the close of the American 
Revolution, there appeared in London a history of 
Connecticut, from the pen of Rev. Samuel Peters, 
who had been a missionary in Hebron in that State, 
but had left the country in consequence of the 
unpopularity he had incurred by taking the side of 
the English Government. This work, though pref- 
aced by protestations of fidelity and painstaking, is 
an odd mixture of fact and fiction. Among other 
fabulous stories, Peters promulgated the notion that 
unrecorded laws, which are styled " blue laws," of an 
ascetic and whimsical severity, were in force among 
the early Puritans of the colony. This singular, 
mendacious chronicle is thought worthy to be cited, 
though not without some expressions of distrust, by 
so recent an author as the learned Dr. Hussey in his 
Bampton Lectures upon the history of the observance 
of Sunday. Now what would be thought of an 
historical critic, who at some time in the remote 
future should take Peters for the governing authority 
in his investigation of the ancient history of Connecti- 
cut ? Other documents, let it be supposed, are extant, 
which have been universally regarded as authentic. 
But these, together with historians like Bancroft and 
Palfrey, who lived much nearer the events and were in 
possession of a great amount of traditionary and docu- 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 305 

mentary evidence which has since perished, he chooses 
to set aside. Such a course would match that taken 
by the critics who would convert the Clementine fiction 
into an authority sufficient to override the firmest 
historical testimonies. 

That a juclaizing party had sway in the Roman 
church in the next period after the apostolic age, is a 
declaration made in the face of convincing evidence to 
the contrary. Baur has contended that the church of 
Rome was made up, at the outset, chiefly of Jewish 
converts. But this proposition is refuted by the 
complexion of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The 
fact of his writing an epistle to this church, which he 
had not personally planted and had never visited, is 
itself a strong presumption that the church was 
predominantly Gentile. The various expressions in 
the first chapter, relative to his calling to preach to the 
Gentiles and his willingness to fulfil it even at Rome 
(vs. 5, 6, 14, 15), would be out of place in an address 
to born Jews. And how unnatural is the hypothesis 
that the first eight chapters were written merely to 
serve as an introduction to the two chapters which 
follow ! The observances of the Roman church were 
anti-Jewish. The custom grew up there of fasting on 
Saturday, or of continuing the fast of Friday through 
the following day, whilst Sunday was made a joyous 
festival. The Roman church, in the discussions of the 
second century concerning Easter, took ground against 
conforming to the Jewish calendar or continuing the 
20 



306 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

Jewish festivals. These are undeniable facts They 
are met by the uncertified conjecture, that they indi- 
cate a Pauline reaction against the judaizing spirit 
which is assumed to have prevailed before ! But this 
rejoinder is a subterfuge. If arbitrary conjectures of 
this kind are to pass for evidence, there might as well 
be an end of historical study. 

The effort to trace the hierarchical theory and 
system to a distinctively Jewish- Christian and Petrine 
party, is not less unsuccessful. There was, without 
doubt, the transfer of the idea of the Jewish priest- 
hood to the Christian clergy. The analogy of the Old 
Testament system was at once a model, and to some 
extent a motive, which determined the rank and func- 
tions of the Christian ecclesiastics. But the Jewish 
prejudice was peculiarly a national feeling. It was a 
feeling of pride in race and blood. This peculiar 
feeling, and the demands connected with it, hardly 
admit of being satisfied by the ascription of priestly 
prerogatives to Gentiles — by a seeming revival of the 
old religious system, attended, however, by the total 
loss of national preeminence. Jewish Christians, to 
be sure, might be liable to confound Old Testament 
with Christian ideas, and transform the preacher into 
the priest. This tendency, however, is to be distin- 
guished from the technically judaizing spirit, which 
had its roots in a national jealousy. But even the 
Jewish- Christian feeling which was not judaizing, was 
far from being the controlling cause of that change in 



REFUTATION OP BAUR. 307 

Christian views which paved the way for the hierar- 
chical system. Tendencies to such a system sprung 
up on heathen soil. Especially might this be the fact 
where the Old Testament, with its Levitical system, 
was in the hands of Christians, and when the question 
of the distinctive character of justification under the 
gospel no longer excited a living interest or continued 
to stir up controversy. The growth of the hierarchy, 
as a part of doctrinal belief and as a practical system, 
was imperceptible. It was rather due to the fact that 
the Church had become oblivious of the points of 
doctrine on which Paul insisted, or of the principles 
which underlie them, than to any distinct exertion or 
influence of an Ebionite party. 

But how shall we explain the exalted rank which 
was given to Peter, and the position ascribed to him, 
of principal founder of the Roman church? These 
views, we reply, were not inspired by any anti-Pauline 
party. The whole tradition of Peter's visit to Rome 
and martyrdom there, as well as the later story of his 
episcopal supremacy in the Roman church, is attribu- 
ted by the Tubingen critics to Ebionite partisanship. 
But as to the doctrine of Peter's headship among the 
apostles, it was not the offspring of an anti-Pauline 
theology. The idea of the hierarchy involved the need 
of an apostolic centre and head. And this place was 
naturally assigned to Peter. The reading of the 
Gospels and the Acts made the impression that Peter 
was the foremost of the apostles and was constituted 



308 OKIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

their leader. Nor was this impression — however false 
the doctrine of an essential difference of rank between 
Peter and the rest may be — wholly unfounded. Even 
Paul in more than one place seems to regard Peter as 
the principal apostle, though a position hardly inferior 
seems to be held by James. 1 But the tradition of the 
visit of Peter to Home and of his death there, ante- 
dates the hierarchical pretensions of the Roman 
church. Moreover, had the story been originated by 
a Petrine party in order to depress the consideration of 
Paul, as Baur pretends, it would have found instant 
contradiction from the Pauline party at Borne, instead 
of being attested, as it is, by the Presbyter Caius, him- 
self a Christian zealous for the honor of Paul. 2 In 
truth, the idea that Peter helped to found the Roman 
church, and the association of his name with Paul in 
this work, is a sign that no partisanship respecting the 
merits and claims of these apostles existed. The 
notion that Peter was the first bishop of the Roman 
church, is something different from the tradition of his 
concern in founding it, and was probably set in cir- 
culation by the Pseudo-Clementine writings ; first by 
the Homilies, but especially by the Recognitions, 
which passed for a genuine work. The inroads of 
Gnosticism and Montanism, and other agencies, con- 
tributed to combine orthodox Christianity into a more 
compact body. As the result of a variety of causes, 
the deepest of which lie in inherent tendencies of 

1 Gal. i. 18, ii. 7, 8. 2 Euseb., Lib. II. c. 25. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 309 

human nature, an externalized conception of Chris- 
tianity began more and more to prevail. The great, 
metropolitan church, in the city where Paul and Peter 
had died, the only church in the west claiming to be 
established and guided by an apostle, towered above 
all other western churches and even above all other 
apostolic sees. The idea of an apostolic primacy on 
the part of Peter insensibly connected itself with the 
story of an episcopal duty sustained by him in the 
Roman church. In these changes of doctrine and 
organization, we recognize, to be sure, the establish- 
ment of a system analogous to that of the Old Testa- 
ment, and, in a great degree, with more or less con- 
sciousness, modelled after it ; but we discern no evi- 
dence of the presence of a distinct, controlling Ebionite 
or judaizing party. 

In the foregoing remarks we have not taken into 
view those important writings, the epistle of Barnabas, 
the epistle of Polycarp, and the Ignatian epistles, 1 the 
prevailing drift of which is confessed to be distinctly 
Pauline. 2 It has been possible, as we think, com- 

1 We may observe that the genuineness of the shorter Ignatian 
epistles — though they may have suffered interpolation— is not now 
impugned by judicious scholars. After the discovery of the Syrian 
version of three of these epistles, Bunsen came out with the hasty 
statement that only these, or so much of them as the Syrian version 
contained, are genuine. The Syrian translations, however, have 
been proved to be the product of an abridgment of the Ignatian 
originals, and to afford no evidence whatever against the genuine- 
ness of the remaining four. 

2 See Schwegler's Nacliapostolisches Zeitalter, B. I. 



310 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

pletely to refute the position of the Tubingen school 
by a plain analysis of their own evidence. Nor have 
we thought it necessary to answer the criticism which 
is quick-scented enough to detect in Justin Martyr a 
modicum of the judaizing leaven. Justin speaks 
mildly of the more liberal Ebionites who sought not 
to interfere with the freedom of the heathen con- 
verts ; 1 and in the same spirit Paul would have 
spoken. Whoever will read with an impartial eye 
what Justin says of salvation by faith — that Abraham 
was justified " for the faith which he had being yet 
in uncircumcision" 2 (a statement doubtless borrowed 
from Paul), or peruse what he says of the sabbaths 
and fasts of the Jews, 3 or attend to his doctrine con- 
cerning the exalted dignity of Christ, will need no 
argument to convince him that Justin had no affinity 
with Ebionitism. 

The Church in the era following the apostolic age 
was not swayed by Ebionitism. There was no party, 
save a party known and recognized as heretical, which 
was hostile to the Apostle Paul or called in question 
his right to be considered an apostle. However the 
Church may have gradually lapsed from his interpreta- 
tion of the gospel, there was among orthodox Chris- 
tians no conscious and wilful opposition to his doc- 
trine. The whole theory of an anti-Pauline, Ebionite 

1 Dial c. Tryph., c. 47. 
3 Dial c. Tryph., c. 23. 
8 E. g. Dial c. Try ph., c. 19 seq. 



THE EBIONITE PARTIES. 311 

Christianity in the second century, is not only unsup- 
ported by any solid evidence, but is positively proved 
to be false. Rather is it true that judaizing Chris- 
tianity shrunk away and fell into a powerless sect, in 
the presence of the wide-spread establishment of the 
gospel among the heathen, and when Jerusalem, the 
sacred seat of the ancient worship, became a heap of 
ruins. Pauline Christianity achieved the victory ; and 
then in Gentile churches themselves there sprung up 
conceptions of religion at variance with the spirit and 
tenor of the great apostle's teaching. 

II. We proceed to the second topic which we 
proposed to consider — The Early Views concerning 
Christ, and the Doctrine of his Divinity. 

In common with the older Socinians, Baur seeks 
to prove that the humanitarian view of the person of 
the Saviour was the original doctrine, or the doctrine 
of the Jewish Christians, partly on the ground that 
the Ebionites of the post-apostolic period, the remnant 
of the Judaean church, adhered to this conception, 
and were unitarians of the humanitarian type. 

In order to test the validity of this argument, we 
shall have to state, as concisely as we can, what is 
known respecting the rise and character of the early 
Ebionite parties. 1 

1 On this subject, there is nothing to supersede the lucid, master- 
ly dissertation of Gieseler in Stdudlin u. Tzschirner^s Archw fur 
KirchengescMchte, iv. 2. Later investigations of Neander, Schliemann 



312 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

There is no doubt, as we have said above, that 
there were in the apostolic age two branches of the 
Church. The Gentiles, or the churches composed of 
the disciples of Paul, and " they of the circumcision", 
were distinguished by the fact that the latter kept up 
the observance of the Old Testament ritual. It is a 
false position of Baur, as we affirm once more, that 
James, Peter, and the other Jerusalem apostles, 
together with the body of the Judaean church, were 
disposed to disfellowship Paul and his disciples. Yet 
there was a party of Jewish Christians — the Judaizers 
- — imbued with a pharisaical spirit, and including 
many former members of the pharisaical sect, who 
were bent on making circumcision obligatory upon the 
heathen converts, and were inimical to the Apostle 
Paul. There is reason to believe that the judaizing 
party grew in numbers in proportion as the Gentile 
branch of the church gained in strength, and that 
their attachment to the ritual became more and more 
fanatical. At the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish 
Christians had taken refuge for the time in Pella and 
in the adjacent regions of eastern Palestine. But in 
consequence of repeated insurrections of the Jews, 
they were at length forbidden by Hadrian (a. d. 135) 
to enter the new city which he established on the site 
of Jerusalem ; and the celebration of the Mosaic ritual, 

(in the work already noticed), Dorner, and others, have rectified, 
however, the representations of Gieseler in certain particulars, and 
have brought forward some new information. 



THE EBIONITE PARTIES. 313 

whether by Jews or Jewish Christians, was interdicted. 
Thenceforward the Christian church at Jerusalem 
ceased to observe the ceremonial law, and was exter- 
nally, as well as in spirit, in full accord with the Gen- 
tile churches. 

Not far from the time when this decree was issued, 
we find Justin Martyr 1 distinguishing between two 
classes of Jewish-Christian sectaries, with one of 
whom he can have no communion, while he looks 
upon the other with charity. The first class observe 
the ceremonial law and insist that Gentile Christians 
shall observe it ; the second class, though observing 
the lav/ themselves, which Justin counts a weakness, 
yet freely tolerate their Gentile brethren and make no 
attempt to put the yoke of circumcision and sabbaths 
upon them. It is plain that Justin has in mind the 
two parties which are known to later writers as 
Ebionites and Nazarenes ; both however being fre- 
quently merged under the common name of Ebionite. 
Justin immediately proceeds to consider the opinion 
which was entertained by some Christians, that Christ 
did not preexist, but is a man, not essentially dis- 
tinguished from other men • and his language renders 
it clear that Jewish Christians are referred to. 
Irenaeus (who first uses the name Ebio?iites) and 
Tertullian treat Ebionitism as a heresy, and bring up 
the fact of the enmity of the sect to the Apostle Paul. 
This antagonism to Paul, however, belonged, as we 

1 Dial. c. Tryph., 4T, 48. 



314 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

know, only to the strict Ebionites, and was not shared 
by the milder party of Nazarenes. Origen explicitly 
distinguishes these two divisions of the Ebionite class. 
The former, he says, deny and the latter accept the 
miraculous birth of Christ from the Virgin. 1 Eusebius 
describing both parties under the common designation 
of Ebionites, yet distinctly states that a portion of 
them did not deny " that the Lord was born of the 
Virgin by the Holy Ghost." 2 Erom Jerome and 
Epiphanius, in the latter part of the fourth century, 
we derive a more full explanation of the characteristic 
tenets of the different judaizing sects. Epiphanius 
describes a third class of Ebionites, who had mingled 
with their judaizing tenets theosophic or gnostical 
speculations and thus concocted a distinct and pecu- 
liar scheme of doctrine. One phase of this eclectic 
theology, as we have already explained, is presented in 
the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. 3 The Homilies, it 
will be remembered, along with other elements which 
separate their system from the dogmas of either of the 
two parties which we have just described, are yet 
Ebionite in their hostility to the Apostle Paul, their 
rejection of the doctrine of Christ's divinity, and in 
various other points. Jerome, who lived in the 
neighborhood of the Jewish Christians and held 
intercourse with them, is our best authority, especially 
so far as the Nazarenes are concerned. Both these 

1 Origen, c. Celsum, v. 61, also c. 65. 

2 Euseb., Lib. III. c. 27. 3 Epiph., Ilaer. xxx. 



THE EBIONITE PARTIES. 315 

parties made use exclusively of the Gospel of the 
Hebrews, a gospel in the Aramaic dialect, which 
bore a near resemblance to the canonical Gospel of 
Matthew. The Ebionites proper, hoAvever, unlike the 
Nazarenes, rejected the first two chapters. Both ob- 
served the requirements of the ceremonial law. It is 
clear that the Ebionites proper considered Jesus to be 
a mere man, begotten by a human father ; a prophet, 
receiving the messianic call at his baptism, and endued 
at that time with the Holy Spirit for the discharge 
of his office. Without circumcision, there was no 
salvation. Christ would come again to establish his 
throne at Jerusalem and bring all nations into subjec- 
tion. Whether the Nazarenes held the chiliastic, or 
sensuous millennial, doctrine of the stricter Ebionites, 
we cannot determine. 1 But in many features the 
Nazarenes were broadly distinguished from this party 
of radical Judaizers. They rejected the pharisaical 
traditions and spirit. They believed that Jesus was 
conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin. 
They cherished a fraternal feeling towards the Gentile 
Christians. They honored the Apostle Paul. They 
waited, with longing, for the conversion of their Jewish 
countrymen to the faith in Christ. 

Such, in brief, was the character of the Jewish- 
Christian sects, as it is gathered from the fragmentary 
information to be gleaned from the Eathers. We 
cannot fail to recognize in the Ebionites proper the 

1 See, on this topic, ScMiemann, s. 457. 



316 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

descendants of the party of Judaizers who, during the 
life of Paul, displayed a fanatical opposition to his 
principles and person. Nor do we err in regarding 
the Nazarenes as the successors of that milder party 
of Judaean Christians, who, under the lead of the 
apostles, observed, to be sure, the laws and customs 
of their people, but were in fraternal union with Paul 
and his Gentile churches. The territorial situation of 
these post-apostolic sects, in Palestine and the vicinity, 
together with all the rest of the knowledge we possess 
concerning them, corroborates this view. When and 
how did these parties separate from each other and 
form the rest of the church ? We are not without the 
means of answering this question. Hegesippus, to- 
wards the end of the second century, states expressly 
that during the lifetime of the apostles, and down to 
the times of Trajan, there was no heresy or division in 
the Jerusalem church, and that the first movements of 
this sort occurred after the death of Simeon, the suc- 
cessor of James, or about the year 108. Up to this 
time the. Church had remained a pure and unspotted 
virgin — a mode of expression signifying the absence 
of heretical parties. 1 It may be that little reliance is 
to be put upon the statement that an individual 
named Thebuthis was the first fomenter of schism, or 
that personal rivalry lay at the bottom of it ; but as to 
the main chronological fact, there is no good reason 
for doubt. When the final decree expelling the Jews 

1 See Heinichen's note (8) to Euseb., Lib. III. 32. 



THE EBIONITE PARTIES. 317 

and Jewish ritual from Jerusalem, was issued, a large 
number of Hebrew Christians abandoned the ceremo- 
nies of the law and identified themselves with the 
Gentile church. 1 But the Jewish Christians who were 
not prepared to take this step and were likewise un- 
prepared to give up their Christian faith altogether, 
were thrown into the position of separate sects. The 
precise relations of the two divisions of the judaistic 
party to each other, it is not so easy to determine. 
But this we know, that the name of the Nazarenes had 
been applied from the beginning, by the Jews, to 
Christians generally • 2 and that the Nazarene party, 
in their principle relative to circumcision and their 
feeling towards Paul, harmonized with the liberal 
Jewish Christians of the apostolic age and were bitterly 
hated by the stricter Ebionites. It is natural, there- 
fore, to suppose, with Gieseler, that the Ebionites 
proper — the strict Judaizers — broke off from the 
Nazarenes at the time when Hegesippus states that 
heresy and division began. When the Epistle to the 
Hebrews was written, or shortly before the destruction 
of Jerusalem by Titus, the judaizing party had shown 
signs of withdrawing itself from their more liberal 

1 Gieseler's Essay (in Stdudlin u. TzscMrner), s. 325. His refer- 
ences are to Epiph. de Pond, et Mens. § 15, and Sulpicius Severus, 
Hist. Sacr. II. 31. Where there is so great an inherent probability 
that the fact was as they state, these authorities may be considered 
sufficient. 

2 Paul was called by his Jewish accusers " a ringleader of the sect 
of the JSTazarenes." Acts xxiv. 5. 



318 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

countrymen and brethren. Here was the germ of the 
stricter Ebionite party. That the word Ebionite is 
derived from a person bearing the name of Ebion, a 
founder of the sect, is probably a fancy of Tertullian, 
since no mention is made of such an individual by 
Origen, Irenaeus, or any other previous writer. That 
the word signifies the narrow standpoint of the law, 
or the low views entertained concerning Christ, both 
of which interpretations are given by Origen, is equally 
improbable. It is more likely that it was one of the 
names of opprobrium early affixed by the Jews to 
believers in Jesus, on account of their actual poverty 
and social inferiority; though this poverty did not 
spring, as Baur would have it, from ascetic principles. 
This name continued to be applied to Jewish believers 
by their unbelieving countrymen, and was gradually 
appropriated, at least in Christian use, more specially 
to one branch of the Jewish separatists. 

The unsoundness of the argument drawn from the 
opinions of the Ebionites, against the supposition that 
the divinity of Christ was a part of the faith of the 
apostolic church, is easily exposed. In the first place, 
it is not true that the Nazarenes — the only portion of 
the Ebionites whose opinion on the subject is pertinent 
in the discussion — professed the humanitarian doc- 
trine. The Eathers unite in attributing to them a 
higher conception of Christ than was entertained by 
the more bigoted faction. They believed in his mira- 
culous generation through the Spirit of God. We do 



i 



THE EBI0NITE PARTIES. 319 

not find, indeed, that the hypostatic preexistence of 
Christ was an article of their creed ; but the absence 
of this tenet from a theology not fully denned or de- 
veloped, is very different from the distinct rejection of 
it. Dorner cogently defends the ground which was 
formerly taken by Horsley, that the Xazarenes are. not 
to be counted among the disbelievers hi the Saviour's 
divinity. 1 He shows that when Christ is styled, in a 
passage of their gospel, the Son of the Holy Spirit, it 
is not the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, but the spirit of 
God in the more general sense, or God himself, that is 
meant. 2 Dorner holds that their view, though unde- 
fined, had more resemblance to Patripassianism. But, 
in the second place, if the Nazarenes of the second 
and third centimes were humanitarians, it would be 
entirely unwarrantable to infer that the body of Jeru- 
salem Christians in the apostolic age were of the same 
mind. The Ebionites did not represent the type of 
faith and feeling which belonged to Peter, James, 
John, and their disciples. We might as well infer 
that the faith of the Congregationalists of Boston at 
the end of the seventeenth century, must correspond 
to the faith of their descendants at the end of the 
eighteenth. Great changes of doctrine imperceptibly 
occur ; and this is more easily the fact where doctrines 
are not scientifically defined. We have historical 

1 Dorner's EntwickelungsgeschicMe d. Lelire v. d. Person Christi, 
B. I. s. 307 seq. 

2 Schliemann misinterprets these poetical expressions. 



320 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

proof that such a change occurred in the case of the 
Jewish Christians. The Epistle to the Hebrews, 
written to Palestinian Christians a short time before 
the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, is a warning 
against these tendencies, of which actual apostasy on 
the part of some, and heretical Ebionitism on the 
part of others, were the proper fruit. Side by side 
with his arguments against keeping up the Mosaic 
ritual, the author of the Epistle lays stress upon 
the exalted nature of Christ. It appears altogether 
probable that the disposition to take a lower than 
the apostolic view of the person of Christ, as well 
as a tenacious clinging to the obsolete ritual, were 
manifest dangers which the writer of this epistle 
endeavors to meet and to avert. When the crisis 
occurred which compelled a choice, a portion of the 
Judaean Christians gave up the law and cast in their 
lot with the Gentile Christians. The Ebionites were 
degenerate Hebrew Christians. If there was an 
advance on the part of their brethren, on their part 
there was retrogression. Not only were they opposed 
to a logical and legitimate progress, they fell back from 
the tone and spirit of apostolic Christianity and a 
large portion of them settled down upon a lower view 
of Christ, according to which he was only a human 
prophet and lawgiver. 

We are now prepared to judge of the truth of the 
oft-repeated statement that Christianity in its first 
stage was Ebionite. If this statement signify that 



baur's wrong exegesis. 321 

the apostles and the church, as a body, at Jerusalem, 
required heathen converts to be circumcised, it is false. 
If it signify that they were humanitarians in the doc- 
trine of Christ, it is likewise unfounded. If it mean 
that they were inimical to Paul, it is equally destitute 
of truth. If it mean that they made poverty a duty 
and were a band of ascetics, it is not less contradicted 
by the evidence. If it be intended simply that the 
Jewish Christians continued to worship in the temple 
and, for themselves, to observe the law, so much is 
true. In the proper and ordinary acceptation of the 
term, they were not Ebionites ; and this appellation 
can be rightly applied only to schismatical parties of 
a later date. 

When we follow Baur into the province of exege- 
sis, we find his statements still more fallacious. We 
allow that Christ is not presented in just the same 
aspect in the various books of the New Testament, 
whether gospels or epistles. To say nothing of other 
grounds for a variety of representation, it is true of 
every great character in history, that the impression he 
makes on different persons varies with their varying 
individuality. One is taken up with a side which 
another partly overlooks. The Gospels do differ, 
though they do not dissent, from each other. The 
Synoptics dwell more on the special proofs of messiah- 
ship and on the future disclosure of Christ's exalted 
rank in the exercise of his office of judge. In John, 
21 



322 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY 

the glory of Christ to be exhibited at the end of the 
world retreats more into the background, whilst the 
fact of his preexistence is distinct and prominent. But 
essentially the same conception of Christ is common 
both to the Synoptics and to John. The same under- 
lying unity is also characteristic of the remaining por- 
tions of the New Testament. 

1. Matthew, who is confidently claimed as a repre- 
sentative of the humanitarian view, really contains the 
same lofty conception of the person of Christ which is 
met with later in the New Testament. The Christ of 
Matthew is not merely a teacher and lawgiver, not 
simply a channel for conveying truth to men. He 
himself, as the head of the new kingdom, a central 
object of faith and love, stands in the foreground. The 
faith of the centurion in his supernatural power is 
applauded ; the little faith in him, on the part of the 
disciples, when the lake is tossed by the tempest, is 
rebuked ; the fervent faith confessed by Peter, or 
Peter as the representative and embodiment of this 
faith, is declared to be the rock on which the Church 
is built. Christ is to be loved more than father or 
mother. All men are to come to him to find rest. 
In his name the Gentiles are to trust. Into his name, 
or fellowship, they are to be baptized. He is greater 
than Jonas, greater than Solomon, Lord of the Sab- 
bath-day. It is undeniable that the title of " Son of 
God," especially when associated, as it is, with the 
antithetical title of " Son of Man," is not only used 



baur's wrong exegesis. 323 

with a physical import, as referring to his miraculous 
birth, and an official import as an honorary title of the 
Messiah, but denotes, also, a metaphysical relation to 
God — a higher, divine nature. " My Father," is the 
usual and, as we think, the deeply significant mode in 
which Christ alludes to the relation of himself to God. 
Moreover, in the background of the eschatology in 
Matthew is the conception of Christ as divine. He 
is to come in the clouds of heaven, in the glory of his 
Father, attended by a retinue of angels, the most 
exalted of created intelligences. He is to summon 
together and to judge the entire race of mankind. 
How shall this be done without omniscience ? To 
our mind, the impression which this whole representa- 
tion is fitted to make, is wholly incongruous with the 
humanitarian doctrine. Very significant, as teaching 
that " Son of David " designates but one side of his 
being, and as likewise containing an implication of his 
preexistence, is the question to the Pharisees : if David 
(in the 110th Psalm) call him Lord, how then is he 
his son ? There are not wanting passages, even in 
Matthew, which closely resemble, even in language, 
the Johannean representation : " No man knoweth the 
Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the 
Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son 
will reveal him • " * or, as it reads in Luke, " No man 
knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who the 
Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will 

1 Matt. xi. 27. 



324 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

reveal him." l How evident that " Son " is here not a 
mere official designation ! Christ is the sole Itevealer 
— in the language of John, the Logos or Word ! He 
and the Father mutually know each other ; and from 
the direct knowledge of either, all other beings are 
precluded! Here is presented a necessary incident, 
one of the constituent elements, we had almost said, 
of the Saviour's divinity. It is true that Christ is 
subordinate to the Father. The historical Christ, the 
Word made flesh, both in the New Testament and in 
the creed of the Church, is subordinate to the Father. 
A kind of subordination, not inconsistent with full and 
proper divinity, belongs even to the preexistent Christ, 
as the Nicene formularies, in agreement with the New 
Testament, imply. 

2. The Epistles of Paul which Baur chooses to 
consider genuine, teach the same doctrine concerning 
Christ as do the Epistles which he rejects. According 
to Baur, the principal peculiarity of Paul's doctrine is 
the ascription to Christ of a sort of celestial humanity, 
whereby he is distinguished from Adam. Dropping 
the interpolated 6 xvQLoq, from the text in 1 Cor. 
xv. 47, he holds that Paul sets the earthly, psychical 
nature of the first Adam, in which the germs of sin 
and death were inherent, in contrast with the second 
Adam, who, instead of springing from the ground, is 
constituted, so to speak, of a higher, heavenly stuff. 
Now Paul does, to be sure, in conformity with 

x Luke x. 32. 



baur's wrong exegesis. 325 

Genesis, ascribe mortality to the unfallen Adam, the 
exemption from that lot having been the destined, 
but forfeited reward of obedience. 1 But his whole 
theology is utterly opposed to the conception of sin as 
originating in a physical imperfection and as forming a 
necessary stage in the development of humanity. Sin 
is man's act ; it is naqaTivoj^a — transgression of a 
law, holy, just, and good. Sin with Paul is ethical, 
not physical. And as to the declaration respecting 
Christ, the second Adam, that he is from heaven 
$£ ovqccvov), it means either that thence he is to 
appear in his glorified body (comp. Phil. hi. 20) — such 
is the interpretation of Meyer ; or, that he is a man 
supernaturally introduced into the race. 2 Baur's 
interpretation is not legitimately drawn from the pas- 
sage, but read into it. In 1 Cor. viii. 6, the pre- 
existence of Christ is distinctly and undeniably assert- 
ed, and with it the creation of the universe by him 
" one Lord Jesus Christ, by iv/iom are all things!' To 
refer this expression to the moral creation, or the 
redemptive work of Christ, as Baur does, though not 
without evident misgivings, is arbitrary and forbidden 
by the context — the " all things " in this clause being 
obviously identical with the " all things " of the clause 

1 Compare with these passages of Paul, Gen. iii. 19, 22, 24. The 
Scriptural doctrine respecting the connection of sin with death, 
together with the sense of 1 Cor. xv. 46 seq., is the subject of an 
ab*e discussion in Julius Muller's Lehre v. d. Sunde, B. II. s. 400 seq. 

2 This last meaning Neander prefers, in his posthumous Commen- 
tary on the Epistles to the Corinthians. 



326 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

preceding, where the creation is attributed, in opposi- 
tion to polytheism, to one God. In 2 Cor. viii. 9, is 
another undeniable assertion of the preexistence of 
Christ and of the incarnation : "Ye know the grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet 
for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his 
poverty might be rich." The descent of Christ from 
a precxistent glory to a state of humiliation is here 
definitely declared. The blessings of salvation come 
to us because Christ, from being rich, consented to 
become poor. It cannot mean, as Baur would have 
it, that in order to enrich us with grace, Christ, who 
was rich in grace, was in a condition of poverty ; for 
if this were the sense, we must understand, if we 
would save the text from confusion of thought, that he 
became poor in grace! On the question whether Paul 
held to any real preexistence of Christ, in any other 
way than as the typical man and as all types ideally 
preexist, Baur is undecided but leans to the negative. 
The preexistence of Christ in Paul, he says, " is vague 
and ambiguous." 1 On the contrary, we affirm that 
these passages, not to mention what other Epistles, 
falsely called spurious, furnish to the same effect, 
exhibit in different language the equivalent of John's 
doctrine of the Logos. 

Baur finds in these other Epistles an advance 
upon the conception in the accepted four, but still a 
form of doctrine below that of John. He misinter- 

1 Das CJiristenthum, etc. s. 314. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 327 

prets, however, Phil. ii. 6 — a text containing a view 
of Christ identical with that of the passage last com- 
mented on. " Who being in the form of God/' says 
Paul, " thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 
but made himself of no reputation " — literally, emptied 
himself — "and took upon him the form of a servant." 
Here Baur confesses that preexistence and a near 
relationship to God are predicated of Christ. But the 
equality with God — expressed in the loa Otco> — was 
not possessed, Baur claims, until he had passed 
through the humiliation of an earthly life and the cross, 
and had been raised from it to that pitch of exaltation. 
But that the true and proper Divinity, expressed in 
the phrase just quoted, is predicated of the preexistent 
Christ, is evident from the expression, " in the form 
of God," contrasted as it is with " the form of a ser- 
vant " which he assumed. He was in the form of 
God ; his mode of existence was divine • the attributes 
and glory of God pertained to him. In purposing to 
descend to save man, he chose not to appear in the 
glories of Divinity ; he let go his condition of equality 
with God instead of being eager to keep hold upon it, 
or — as he is figured in the act of parting with it — to 
lay hold of it, and assumed humanity. Is there not 
here the precise equivalent of the Johannean doctrine 
of a relinquished divine glory, in which he is after- 
wards reinstated ? * 

The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse 

1 John xvii. 5. 



328 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

are ranked by Baur between the Epistles of Paul which 
he considers genuine, and the rest which bear his 
name. 1 They contain a doctrine, Baur says, between 
the humanitarian view and that highest view of 
Christ's person which he finds in the Gospel and the 
first Epistle attributed to John. But in the descrip- 
tion of Christ, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the 
Brightness or Effulgence of God's glory, and the ex- 
press image of his person, and as sitting down, after 
he had purged away our sins, at the right hand of the 
Majesty on High (Heb. i. 3), there is presented the 
same conception which we have found in Phil. ii. 16. 
And as to the Apocalypse, when Baur allows that in 
this book Christ " not only shares with God the same 
power and dominion and the same homage, but is also 
clothed with predicates which seem to leave room for 
no essential distinction between him and God," 2 he 
virtually allows the validity of the orthodox inter- 
pretation, and his subsequent, halting attempts to 
qualify and invalidate this admission fail of their end. 

In regard to the theological doctrine of the Person 
of Christ in the post-apostolic age, Baur is brought 
by his philosophy into an important disagreement 
with the older Socinians. Baur considers the Homo- 
ousion of the Nicene creed to be the logical and legiti- 

1 We niay observe that one of the Tubingen leaders, Hilgenfeld, 
has retracted his denial of the genuineness of the Epistle to the 
Colossians and the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians. So mutable 
is "criticism." 2 Das Christenthum, etc. s. 315. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 329 

mate development of the Christian idea. The forms 
in which the doctrine was stated — the Logos termino- 
logy, in particular — were taken from the Alexandrian 
Jewish philosophy. But the mature Christian doc- 
trine, as to fts contents, was not a conglomerate of 
beliefs before existing. It was not, as Socinians have 
charged, a theft from Platonism. Yet the reader 
would be deceived if he supposed that Baur regards 
Christ as the Nicene Fathers regarded him. The 
Homoousion, in his theory, does not represent an ex- 
clusive and peculiar distinction of Christ. He, by 
the impression he made on men, only gave occasion 
to the process of speculation which terminated in the 
Nicene formula. This formula has value to Baur, 
only as a symbol expressive of the union of the finite 
and the infinite, the pantheistic oneness of man and 
God. With us the Homoousion only defines what 
Christ Avas in reality — the rank that belonged to him 
in distinction from all other sons of men. The process 
of theology was the effort to state the impression pro- 
duced by the person of Christ and by his declarations 
concerning himself. It did not add to the contents 
of the earliest faith ; it simply evolved that faith in a 
scientific form. The Homoousion was not the mere 
climax of a course of thought, of which the historical 
Person of Christ was the moving spring but which 
passed above and beyond the starting point. Christ 
was all that he was seen to be in the disciples' faith 
and declared to be in the mature form of the creed. 



330 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

Connected with the false position of Baur that the 
earliest doctrine — the first step in the metaphysical 
process — was humanitarian, are historical statements 
either unfounded or exaggerated. The prevailing 
view of Christ which was taken in the Roman church 
through the greater part of the second century, Baur 
holds to have been Ebionite. This theory about the 
opinions of the Roman church has been thoroughly 
refuted. The intimate fellowship of Irenaeus with 
that church, as Neander has remarked, is sufficient to 
create the strongest presumption against Baur's 
hypothesis. But the Artemonites, Baur reminds us, 
affirmed that their doctrine, which was monarchianism 
in the humanitarian form, had been the doctrine of 
the church of Rome up to Zephyrinus. So they 
affirmed that their doctrine was that of the apostles, 
John included; for they received his Gospel. But 
Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for this informa- 
tion, adds that their declarations were denied and 
were met by appeals to the early writers and ancient 
hymns, in which the divinity of Christ was said to be 
attested. 1 Moreover, thanks to the newly discovered 
Hippolytus, it is not only ascertained that Zephyrinus 
was a Patripassianist, holding thus to an extreme 
formula of Christ's divinity, but it is now settled that 

1 Euseb., Lib. Y. c. 28. In refutation of the statement that the 
humanitarian doctrine had prevailed up to Zephyrinus it was urged, 
as Eusebius states, that Victor his predecessor had expelled Theo- 
dotus the Currier from the church, for holding that opinion. 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 331 

one, if not two, other bishops of the Roman church 
about that time, adopted the same doctrine. Patripas- 
sianism, of which the Sabellian theory is the offspring, 
could never have sprung from Jewish or judaizing 
influences. It is the antipode of the humanitarian 
doctrine. Yet the fact is, that while adherents of the 
latter doctrine gained no foothold at Rome, the Patri- 
passianist leaders found great favor and even won over 
two, if not three, bishops to their opinion. It is thus 
demonstrated that the anterior opinions at Rome were 
in no sense Ebionite. 1 Indeed, we learn from Hip- 
polytus — from whom it is ascertained that Zephyrinus 
embraced the Patripassianist doctrine — that the Trini- 
ty in the form of hypostatical subordinationism, in 
which, also, he is himself a believer, w T as the mode of 
view previously prevailing at Rome. 

Baur would reverse the usual view of the course 
which history took. He claims that humanitarian, or 
Ebionite, monarchianism (for he confounds the two) 
was the first belief. This was followed by a Patri- 
passian monarchianism. The Logos doctrine mediated 
between the two and culminated in the spurious gos- 
pel of John, while Artemonism or the humanitarian 

x We should not forget to remind the reader that the human- 
itarian monarchianism differed from the ordinary Ehionite view in 
giving no such exaggerated importance to the baptism of Jesus and 
the endowments which he was thought to have then received. 
Neither unitarianism springing up within the Catholic church, nor 
ritualism there, is to he confounded, either historically or doctrinally, 
with Ebionitism. 



332 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

party at the end of the second century, was a reaction 
in behalf of the original belief. But, apart from 
explicit proof of the early and widely diffused Logos 
terminology, how impossible that Patripassianism 
should have been the child of the humanitarian view 
lying at the opposite extreme ! How impossible that 
Patripassianists should have been pacified and satisfied 
with the Logos doctrine ! How singular that Patri- 
passianists in seeking to support their own theory 
against it, should have appealed to this very gospel of 
John, a recent fiction of their adversaries ! In truth, 
there is decisive proof that monarchianism sprung up 
by the side of the Logos theology, from the difficulty 
felt by certain minds in respect to the immanent 
Trinity ; the humanitarian form among persons of a 
rationalistic turn • the Patripassian among those who 
were disposed to exalt Christ to the utmost. 

In the study of ante-Nicene writers on the ques- 
tion of Christ's divinity, it is above all things impor- 
tant to understand the true principle of theological 
development. There is not an addition to the contents 
of Scripture nor to the truth embraced in faith ; but 
theology is the scientific statement of the teaching of 
Scripture and of the objects of faith. The scientific 
statement may be, and at the outset is likely to be, 
defective. Some essential element is omitted. Some 
incongruous element is introduced. Subsequent in- 
vestigation and the light shed by controversy, remedy 
the fault ; and the doctrinal statement advances nearer 



REFUTATION OF BAUR. 333 

to an exact interpretation of the Christian faith. 1 
Controversialists on both sides have erred in overlook- 
ing this distinction. They have either hastily inferred 
that an ante-Nicene Father is Arian, because his 
phraseology is inexact and might indicate Arian opin- 
ions, if uttered two centuries later, when the line 
between the Arian and Athanasian doctrine had been 
sharply drawn ; or they have attempted to strain these 
defective statements into coincidence with the Nicene 
watchwords. Prom this last error, in consequence of 
ignoring the true principle of doctrinal development, 
so great and deeply learned a writer as Bull is not 
free. 

For ourselves, we are convinced that the ante- 
Nicene writers not only believed in the incarnation 
and the preexistence of Christ, but also exalted him, 
in their faith, above the category of creatures. This is 
true when they are not consistent in their language, 
and fall into phraseology which clashes, not only with 
other statements of their own, but with the truth 
which they had at heart. " As concerns the church 
doctrine respecting the Son of God, the Church from 
the beginning has recognized in the person of Christ, 
as he had appeared on earth, a superhuman, yea, 
divine manifestation, nature, power, glory. This was 
even their peculiar doctrine — the object round which 

1 For good remarks on the distinction to be made between cor- 
rectness of faith and correctness in the statement of it, see Dr. 
Shedd's History of Doctrine, Vol. I. p. 246 seq. 



334 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

all their thoughts clustered. At first, just as was the 
case with the apostles, the foundation of this ideal 
apprehension of Christ rested more in feeling and in a 
living necessity of their nature, and the thought was 
grasped and held in a diversified, free form." * Such 
is the conclusion of one of the most impartial and 
thoroughly learned of the recent writers on the history 
of doctrine. He proceeds to add that the parties, in 
the first two centuries, who called in question this 
cardinal truth, were either, like the Ebionites, outside 
of the pale of the Church, or, like the Artemonites, 
alien from its spirit. As Neander has said, there was 
a consciousness that the Redeemer was he from whom 
the creation proceeded, through whom all things were 
made that were made. In the doctrine of the Son, or 
the Word, as the revealer of the invisible God, and of 
the necessity for such a mediator, the essential ele- 
ments of the orthodox conception are really involved. 
" No man hath seen God at any time." As He is in 
himself, He is not directly visible, cognizable, to any 
creature. The Revealer must be, of course, another 
than God ; and yet not another as a creature is 
another, because in this case he would, by the supposi- 
tion, stand at a distance from the being whom he is to 
reveal, instead of really bringing that being to the 
knowledge and contact of created intelligences. 

These remarks will be found to be verified by a 
candid examination of the early Fathers. Even 

1 Baumgarten-Crusius, Dogmengeschichte, B. II. s. 143. 



EARLY DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 335 

Hernias, a Roman Christian, who is thought by some 
to be so infected with Ebionite tendencies, ascribes 
to Christ an existence prior to that of any creature, 
and a participation in the work of creation : " films 
quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior est ita ut in 
consilio Patri suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam." x 
How emphatically are the Saviour's preexistence and 
divinity asserted in that gem of the early literature, 
the anonymous epistle to Diognet ! 2 It is still 
doubted whether in Justin Martyr the preexist en t 
Word is hypostatic — personal — -before God's purpose 
to create is about to be carried into effect ; but Jus- 
tin's idea of emanation takes the Word out of the 
category of creatures, even though, now and then, he 
may fall into expressions which are not logically cohe- 
rent with this position. When he attributes all true 
knowledge of divine things, even among the heathen, 
to the enlightenment that proceeds from the Word, 

1 Hernias, Lib. III. simil. IX., XII. The use, in the early writers, 
of such terms as " Spirit " and " Holy Spirit," sometimes to designate 
the preexistent Christ as an equivalent of Logos, and sometimes in a 
general sense for God. or the operative energy of God, has given rise 
to many mistakes. It has been erroneously concluded that the Holy 
Spirit, i. e. the Sanctifier, was not held to be an hypostasis distinct 
from the preexistent Christ, and that the personality of the Holy Spirit, 
i. e. the Sanctifier, was not an article of belief. These mistakes are 
admirably exposed and explained by Baumgarten-Crusius, in a pas- 
sage of his Dogmengeschichte, B. II. s. 178 seq. 

2 C. 7, 8. See also Clem. 1 Cor. cc. 36, 60, 16, 22 ; Barnabas, c. 
6 (the comment on Gen. 1:26); Ignatius, ad Phil. c. 9 ; ad Ifagn. c. 
8 ; ad Polyc, c. 3 ; Polyc, ad Phil. c. 3, c. 7 (where is quoted John 
iv. 3). 



336 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

and makes the preexistent Christ the divine subject in 
the theophanies of the Old Testament, who speaks to 
the patriarchs and to Moses out of the fire, there 
naming himself the self-existent T am} the character 
of Justin's theology is evident. The Nicene creed, be 
it remembered, though denying (against the Arians) 
that the Son had a beginning of existence, and pre- 
dicating of him coequal divine perfections, did not 
reject all subordination. It denied that sort of sub- 
ordination which would imply that the Son is not truly 
and properly divine, and would reduce him to the rank 
of a creature. In Irenaeus and Tertullian we discover 
the continued endeavor to grasp and combine the 
various elements that were involved in the Christian 
faith. A oneness of the Son with the Father, which 
is yet not an identity — an elevation of the Son above 
all creatures, above all things made — which yet shall 
not intrench upon a pure monotheism, are obviously 
aimed at in their doctrinal constructions. Origen 
contributes one important element, a clear statement 
of the timeless character of the generation of the Son. 
Finally the Nicene Fathers, having before them the 
opposite errors of Arius and Sabellius, hit upon a 
statement which excludes both. 

There is no proof that the humanitarian doctrine 
of Christ — that type of monarchianism — ever prevailed 
extensively in the Church or at any time was the 
creed of more than a minor party, who were out of 

1 Apol, I. 63. 



EARLY DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 337 

sympathy with the general faith. Justin Martyr, in 
arguing with the Jew, mentions that some, whom the 
connection if not the proper reading of the text shows 
to have been converted Jews, considered Christ to be 
a mere human prophet. But the whole tone of the 
passage implies that they constitute a small party in 
dissent from the great current of belief. Tertullian, in 
the well-known passage in which he says that the 
unenlightened, who always compose the majority of 
Christians, are inclined to monarchianism, being per- 
plexed by the economical or hypostatic trinity — a 
passage which even Hase wrongly applies to the 
humanitarian class — unquestionably has in mind the 
Patripassianists, against whom his treatise is directed. 
The same is true of certain passages in Origen, which 
have been sometimes quoted to prove the prevalence 
of a humanitarian theology. 1 

1 Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, c. 3 : u Simplices quique, ne dixerim 
imprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium pars est, 
quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis saecnli ad unicurn et verum 
Deum transfert, expavescunt ad oIkovojiiclv" — the hypostatic trinity. 
" Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. " Xeander justly understands this 
passage and corresponding statements of Origen, as referring to the 
Patripassian class of Monarchians. See his Church History (Am. 
transl.), vol. I. p. 573. The erroneous remark of Hase is in his 
Eirchengeschichte, s. 100. 

The word idiotae has often been mistranslated. Even Horsley 
fell into the error of rendering it idiots— & slip which Priestley was 
not slow to remind him of, and which Horsley defended as well as 
he could. Bentley caught Collins in a similar error. See Bentley's 
Phil. Lips., in his collected Works, Vol. III. p. 263. Idiota means 
originally a private person, in distinction from one in public station : 
22 



338 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. 

On the whole, we must conclude that the historical 
theory of Baur, although he has brought uncommon 
learning and ingenuity to the support of it, is an 
example, not of historical divination, but rather of 
arbitrary, artificial construction. It is one more 
illustration of the power of a preconceived theory to 
distort the perceptions of a strong understanding. 
Unquestionably, new light has been thrown upon the 
origin of the Church, but nothing has been brought 
forward which tends to alter essentially the received 
conception of early Christian history. 

then an unenlightened person — a man of plebeian understanding. 
Idiot stands, in Wicliffe's translation, in 1 Cor. xiv. 16, where 
unlearned is found in our version. People of this sort, Tertullian 
says, found it hard to see the difference between hypostatic trinity 
and tritheism. They preferred the Patripassian view because it was 
easier. 



ESSAY VI. 

THE MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 1 

The peculiar form of unbelief which in our time 
has been brought forward to invalidate the testimony 
to the miracles of the Gospel, is the Mythical Theory ; 
and the leading expounder and advocate of that theory 
is David Frederic Strauss. The Life of Christ, by 
Strauss, is an extensive and elaborate work. The 
author, if not a man of the profoundest learning, is 
nevertheless a trained and well-read theologian. 
Adopting a theory which, at least in the breadth of 
its application, is a novel one, he yet skilfully avails 
himself of everything which has been urged in the way 
of objection to the truth of the Gospel history from the 
side of ancient or modern skepticism. He knows how 
to weave into his indictment charges drawn from the 
most opposite quarters. He is quite ready to borrow 
aid from Woolston, the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentist, and 
other deistical writers, whose philosophy in general he 
repudiates. Thus, in his work, there are brought 

1 Das Leben Jesti, Tcritisch learbeitet, von Dr. David Friedrich 
Strauss. 4 A. Tubingen : 1840. 

StreitscJiriften zur Vertheidigung, &c, von Dr. David Friedrich 
Strauss. Tubingen : 1841. 



340 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

together and braided together the difficulties in the 
New Testament history which all past study had 
brought to light, and the objections which the 
ingenuity of unbelievers, from Celsus to Paulus, had 
found it possible to suggest. It is the last and 
strongest word that skeptical criticism will be able 
to utter against the evangelical narratives. In the 
arrangement and presentation of his matter, the work 
of Strauss is distinguished by a rhetorical skill that is 
rarely surpassed. He knows what it will do to assert 
roundly, what is best conveyed by an insinuation, 
what is more effectively suggested in the form of an 
inquiry. He knows how to put in the foreground 
whatever seems to favor his position, and to pass 
lightly over considerations having a contrary tendency. 
The currency obtained by the work of Strauss, and its 
influence, are very much due, also, to the transparency 
of his style. In the exhibition of the most complex 
details, the remarkable clearness and fluency that 
belong to his ordinary composition are fully preserved. 
It will not be denied that Strauss has presented the 
most plausible theory which can be presented from the 
unbelieving side, and has made it as captivating as the 
nature of the case will admit. This theory we now 
proceed to examine. 1 

Although Strauss undertakes to construct a life of 

1 In connection with Strauss's principal work, the Streitschriften, 
or polemical tracts in reply to his reviewers, which he himself col- 
lected into a volume, will receive attention. 



MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 341 

Christ, it is plain that the great question before his 
mind is the question of the truth or falsehood of the 
narratives in the New Testament which record mira- 
cles. Strange to say, he lays down at the beginning 
the critical canon that a miracle is never to be believed, 
and that the narrative in which it is found is, so far at 
least, unhistorical. That is to say, he begs the ques- 
tion which it is one prime object of his book to discuss. 
His entire work is thus a petitio princijoii. From a 
scientific point of view, therefore, it has, strictly speak- 
ing, no claim to consideration. When we call to mind 
the names on the roll of science which are counted 
among the believers in miracles, such as Pascal, Kep- 
ler, Sir Isaac Newton, not to speak of names propor- 
tionally eminent among scientific men at the present 
day ; and when we think how much of the loftiest in- 
tellect the world has seen has likewise put faith in 
these New Testament narratives ; when, moreover, we 
remember that mankind have generally believed, and 
do now believe, in miraculous events of some sort, we 
must pronounce the pretended axiom that miracles 
are impossible, to be, in every sense of the word, an 
assumption. We waive this point, however, and pro- 
ceed to consider the positive theory of Strauss. 

What is a myth ? A myth is, in form, a narra- 
tive ; resembling, in this respect, the fable, parable, 
and allegory. But unlike these, the idea or feeling 
from which the myth springs, and which, in a sense, it 



342 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

embodies, is not reflectively distinguished from the 
narrative, but rather is blended with it ; the latter 
being, as it were, the native form which the idea or 
sentiment spontaneously assumes. Moreover, there is 
no consciousness on the part of those from whom the 
myth emanates, that this product of their fancy and 
feeling is fictitious. The fable is a fictitious story, 
contrived to inculcate a moral. So, the parable is a 
similitude framed for the express purpose of represent- 
ing abstract truth to the imagination. Both fable and 
parable are the result of conscious invention. In both, 
the symbolical character of the narrative is distinctly 
recognized. Prom the myth, on the contrary, the ele- 
ment of deliberation is utterly absent. There is no 
questioning of its reality, no criticism or inquiry on 
the point, but the most simple, unreflecting faith. A 
like habit of feeling we find in children, who, delight- 
ing in narrative, improvise narrative. It is difficult for 
us to imagine that childlike condition of mind which 
belonged to the early age of nations, when the crea- 
tions of personifying sentiment and fancy were endued, 
in the faith of those from whom they sprung, with this 
unquestioned reality. It is almost as difficult as to 
reproduce those states of mind in which the fundamen- 
tal peculiarities of language germinate ; peculiarities in 
respect to which the philological explorer can only say 
that so mankind in their infancy looked upon things 
and actions. But there is no doubt as to the fact that 
the mythologies had this character. They are the 



NATURE OF A MYTH. 343 

spontaneous growth of childlike imagination, originated 
and cherished in the full, because unthinking, belief in 
their reality. So the Greek mythology sprung into 
being. 1 The popular imagination, unhindered by any 
knowledge of laws and facts which science could not 
suggest, because science was not born, peopled the 
groves and mountains, the sea and air, with divinities, 
whose existence and whose deeds, forming the theme 
of song and story, were the object of universal faith. 
The ablest of the modern writers upon antiquity, such 
as Ottfried Miiller and Mr. Grote, have made it clear 
that frequently there was no historical basis for these 
mythological stories, and that, in the absence of expli- 
cit evidence, we have no right to assume a nucleus of 
fact at their foundation. They may have been — fre- 

1 The reader will perhaps be reminded of the beautiful lines of 
Wordsworth : 

"In that fair clime the lonely herdsman, stretclrd 
On the soft grass, through half a summer's day 
With music lull'd his indolent repose ; 
And, in some fit of weariness, if he, 
When his own breath was silent, chanced to hear 
A distant strain, far sweeter than the sounds 
Which his poor skill could make, his fancy fetch'd 
Even from the blazing chariot of the sun 
A beardless youth, who touched a golden lute, 
And fill'd the illumined groves of ravishment. 
The nightly hunter, lifting up his eyes 
Towards the crescent moon, with grateful heart 
Call'd on the lovely wanderer, who bestow'd 
That timely light to share his joyous sport : 
And hence a blooming goddess and her nymphs." 



344 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

quently, at least, they were — the pure creation of the 
mythopceic faculty ; the incarnated faith and feeling of 
a primitive age, when scientific reflection had not yet 
set bounds to fancy. Science brought reflection. The 
attempt of Euemems to clear the mythical tales of 
improbabilities and incongruities, and to find at the 
bottom a residuum of veritable history, and the 
attempts of both physical and moral philosophers 
to elicit from them an allegorical sense, are, one and 
all, the fruit of that skepticism which culture brought 
with it, and proceed upon a totally false view of the 
manner in which the myths originate. When these 
theories came up, the spell of the old faith was already 
broken. They are the efforts of Rationalism to keep 
up some attachment to obsolete beliefs, or to save 
itself from conscious irreverence or popular displeasure. 
A state of mind had arisen, wholly different from that 
which prevailed in the credulous, unreflecting, child- 
like period, when a common fear or faith embodied 
itself spontaneously in a fiction which was taken for 
fact. 1 

1 Upon the nature of the myth, see K. 0. Muller , s Prolegomena 
zu einer wissenscTiaftlicTien Mythologie (1825). The recently pub- 
lished lectures of Schelling on the Introduction to Mythology (see 
Schelling's Sdmmtliche WerJce, II. Abth. I.), are a very able and 
elaborate discussion. Schelling examines at length the various 
theories which have been proposed to account for the origin of 
mythology, including those of Ileyne, Hermann, Hume, Voss, Creu- 
zer, and others. He disproves all the irreligious hypotheses and 
expounds in an interesting and profound way his own view, which is 
the same in spirit as that of Mtiller, although the latter, in the opin- 



ORIGIN OF MYTHOLOGY. 345 

As we have implied, back of the authentic history 
of most nations lies a mythical era. And whenever 
the requisite conditions are present, the mythopceic 
instinct is active. The middle ages furnish a striking 
example. The fountain of sentiment and fancy in the 
uncultured nations of Europe divaricated, so to speak, 
into two channels, the religious myth and the myth of 
chivalry. When we have eliminated from the immense 
mass of legendary history which forms the lives of the 
Saints what is due to pious frauds (though these pre- 
suppose a ready faith), and what is historical, being 
due to morbid or otherwise extraordinary psychological 
states, and, if the reader so pleases, to miracle, there 

ion of Schelling (p. 199), has not applied his theory to the first 
origination of the conceptions of the gods, but rather to their mytho- 
logical doings — the mythological history. Schelling applauds the 
remarks of Coleridge on this subject, and says that he gives the 
latter a dispensation for the alleged free borrowing from his writings, 
in return for the single word which Coleridge has suggested as a 
proper description of myths. They are not allegorical, says Cole- 
ridge, bat tautegorico}. Schelling also maintains that the primitive 
religion of mankind was "relative monotheism," that is, the worship 
of one God who is not known in his absolute character. Thence 
polytheism arose, so that this one God was only the first of a series. 

We may also refer the reader to the sixteenth and seventeenth 
chapters of the first volume of Grote's History of Greece. Mr. Grote 
shows the spontaneity that characterizes the origin of myths. In 
some other important respects, his view is defective. Xo theory 
that does not explicitly take account of the truths expressed by Paul 
in Eomans, i. 21, and Acts, xvii. 23 seq., can be considered satisfac- 
tory. A religious nature in man and a fall from the communion of 
the one living God, must be presupposed, if we would explain the 
mythologies. 



346 MYTHICAL THEORY OE STRAUSS. 

still remain a multitude of narratives involving super- 
natural events, which last have no foundation whatever 
in fact, but were yet thoroughly believed by those from 
whose fancy, enlivened and swayed by religious senti- 
ment, they emanated. 

Strauss was not the first to suggest that portions of 
the biblical history are myths \ but Strauss it is who 
has applied the mythical theory in detail and at length 
to the Gospel narratives, and with the aid of this 
theory has attempted to divest the life of Christ of all 
supernatural elements,' — all these being pronounced 
mythological. Strauss opposes, on the one hand, 
believers in the miracles, and, on the other, the advo- 
cates of the so-called " natural exposition," of whom 
Paulus was the chief. Paulus was the German Eue- 
merus, holding the New Testament narratives of 
miracles to be erroneous conceptions and amplifica- 
tions of historical events which really fell within the 
sphere of natural law. Thus, the healing of the blind 
was accomplished by Christ through an efficacious 
powder applied to their eyes — a circumstance which 
was unnoticed or omitted by the lovers of the mar- 
vellous whose reports we have : the fact at the bottom 
of the record of the transmuting of water into wine, 
was the gift of a large amount of wine, which Christ, 
since he was to be attended by several disciples, 
brought with him to the wedding : instead of being 
expected to find a coin in the mouth of the fish, Peter 
was to obtain it by selling a fish in the market, and 



MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 347 

the Gospel narrative sprung from a mistaken view of 
the transaction : Christ did not walk on the water, as 
was supposed, but walked along the shore : the so- 
called transfiguration was the effect on the disciples of 
seeing Christ on a higher mountain-peak which was 
white with snow. Strange as it may seem, abundant 
learning and the utmost painstaking were expended in 
the support of this theory, which, however, had few 
adherents when Strauss gave it the final death-blow. 
Equal hostility is professed by Strauss to the form of 
infidelity which had charged the apostles and their 
Master with being wilful deceivers. He joins with 
the Christian believer in denouncing the coarseness 
and shallowness of that species of unbelief which found 
reception among pretended philosophers of the last 
century. He will propound a theory which involves 
no such condemnation of the founders of Christianity. 
He will propound a theory, moreover, which leaves 
untouched that inner substance of Christianity which 
is alone valuable to the philosopher. His construction 
will have the merit of sparing the sensibilities of the 
believer who is offended at hearing those whom he 
reveres, branded as impostors, and, at the same time, 
of relieving the men of the nineteenth century from 
giving credence to events which, it is quietly assumed, 
modern science pronounces to be impossible. 

Omitting minor details, some of which we shall 
have occasion to bring forward in the progress of the 
discussion, the principal points in the doctrine of 



248 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

Strauss may be briefly stated. There existed in 
Palestine, at the time when Jesus grew up to man- 
hood, a wide- spread expectation of the coming of the 
Messiah. There was also a defined conception, the 
result of the teaching of the Old Testament and of 
later speculation, of the character of his work. Among 
other things, he was to work miracles, such as the 
opening of the eyes of the blind, the healing of the 
sick, the raising of the dead ; and he was, generally, 
to outdo the supernatural works ascribed to Moses and 
Elijah and the other prophets of the former time. 
Jesus, who had been baptized by John, became at 
length persuaded that he was the promised Messiah. 
Endowed with lofty qualities of mind and character, 
he attached to himself disciples who shared in his 
belief concerning himself. He taught with power 
through the towns and villages of Palestine. But, 
encountering the bitter hatred of the ruling classes on 
account of his rebuke of their iniquities, he was seized 
upon and put to death under Pontius Pilate. Over- 
whelmed with grief and disappointment, his disciples, 
who had expected of him a political triumph, were 
finally comforted and inspirited by the mistaken belief 
that he had been raised from the dead. Hence the 
cause of Jesus was not crushed, but gradually gained 
strength. And out of the bosom of the young com- 
munity, filled with enthusiastic attachment to their 
slain and (as they believed) risen Lord, there sprung 
the mythical tales which we find in the Gospels. Be- 



MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 349 

lieving Jesus to be the Messiah, they attributed to him 
spontaneously the deeds which the prophecies had 
ascribed to that personage. In these mythical crea- 
tions, the formative idea was the Old Testament 
description of the Messiah. This idea, coupled with 
the faith in Jesus, generated the Gospel history of 
Christ, so far as that is miraculous, and even exerted 
a very important influence in shaping and coloring 
circumstances in the narrative which are not super- 
natural. The Christ of the New Testament is thus 
the ideal Messiah. He is Jesus of Nazareth, glorified 
in the feeling and fancy of disciples by the ascription 
to him of supernatural power and supernatural deeds, 
such as lay in the traditional, cherished image of the 
Messiah. 

It should be observed that Strauss does not reject 
the supposition of a conscious invention in the case of 
certain features in the New Testament reports of mira- 
cles, notwithstanding his general disavowal of an intent 
to impeach the moral character of their authors ; but 
he claims a very mild judgment for a certain kind of 
artless, though not wholly unconscious, poetizing — the 
arglose dicJitimg of simple souls. 1 But how far Strauss 
and his school are able to adhere to their canon, which 
excludes wilful deception from a part in producing the 
miraculous narratives of the Gospel, will be considered 
on a subsequent page. 

The denial of the genuineness of the four Gospels 

1 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 95. 



350 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

is an essential part of Strauss's theory. They cannot 
come, he maintains, from " eyewitnesses or well-informed 
contemporaries." The apostles could not be deceived 
to such an extent as we should be compelled to assume, 
if we granted that the Gospels exhibit their testimony. 
On the subject of the origin of the Gospels, Strauss is 
neither full nor clear ; but this is affirmed, that they 
are the production of later, non-apostolic writers. This 
position he strives to establish by a critical analysis and 
comparison of these documents. The attempt is made 
to prove upon them such inconsistencies with each 
other, as well as violations of probability, as render it 
impossible to suppose that they came from the hand, or 
bear the sanction, of the immediate followers of Christ. 
The credibility of the Gospels is attacked, partly as 
a means of disproving their genuineness. And the 
method of the attack is to press the point of the im- 
probability of the miracles, while, at the same time, the 
untrustworthy character of the narratives is elaborately 
argued on other grounds. The Gospels are dissected 
with the critical knife, their structure and contents are 
subjected to a minute examination, for the purpose of 
impressing the reader with the conviction that, inde- 
pendently of their record of miracles, these histories 
are too inaccurate and self-contradictory to be relied 
on. Their alleged imperfections are skilfully connected 
with the improbable nature of the events they record, 
so that the effect of both considerations may be to break 
down their historic value. 



DISPROVED BY THE APOSTLES' FAITH. 351 

Having thus stated the main points in the theory 
of Strauss, we proceed to set forth the reasons why the 
mythical hypothesis is untenable. 

I. The belief of the apostles and of Jesus himself 
that he was the Messiah, cannot be accounted for on 
the theory of Strauss, and could not have existed, were 
the assumptions of that theory sound. 

Strauss puts his doctrine into a kind of syllogism. 
There was a fixed idea that the Messiah would work 
these various miracles ; there was a fixed persuasion in 
the minds of the disciples that Jesus was the Messiah ; 
hence the necessity that the mythopoeic faculty should 
attribute these miracles to him. 1 These, we are told, 
were the conditions and forces by which the myths 
were generated. But if it was a fixed expectation that 
the Messiah would work these miracles, how could the 
disciples believe in Jesus in the absence of these indis- 
pensable signs of Messiahship ? Recollect that this 
persuasion concerning the Messiah is represented to be 
so deep and universal as to move the imagination of the 
disciples of Jesus, after his death, to connect with him 
all these fictitious miracles. How, then, were they 
convinced of his claim to be the Messiah — so convinced 
that their faith survived the disappointment of some 
of their strongest and fondest anticipations relative 
to his kingdom, and survived even the shock of his 
judicial death? It must be manifest to every candid 
man that Strauss is thrown upon a dilemma. Either 

1 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 94. 



352 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

this previous ideal of the Messiah was not so firmly 
engraved upon the minds of the disciples, in which 
case the condition and motive for the creation of myths 
are wanting ; or being thus firmly fixed, their faith in 
Jesus through his lifetime proves that miracles were 
really performed. A similar remark may be made of 
Jesus himself, since he is supposed to have shared, on 
this point at least, in the common expectation respecting 
the characteristic works of the Messiah. How could 
he maintain this unswerving faith in his messianic 
calling and office, in the absence of the one principal 
criterion, the exercise of supernatural power? To 
avoid one difficulty, the advocate of the mythical 
hypothesis creates another which no ingenuity can 
remove. 

It is not to be supposed that Strauss ignores this 
difficulty. He endeavors to answer the objection. 
The impressiveness of the character and teaching of 
Christ supplied, in a measure, the place of miracles so 
long as he was bodily present. But this consideration 
is evidently felt to be quite inadequate, and hence 
Strauss makes prominent what he seems to consider a 
concession. Jesus, we are informed, did calm and 
relieve certain persons afflicted with nervous disease, 
which was thought to be the fruit of demoniacal 
possession. This effect was wrought, however, only by 
psychological influence — the natural influence of a 
strong and calm nature. Hence, it was only in cases 
where the type of the disease was mild and chiefly 



DILEMMA OF STRAUSS. 353 

mental in its origin that such cures were effected. 
The cure of a case like that of the maniac of Gadara, 
or the child at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration, 
would be a miracle, and is, of course, excluded. 1 
Moreover, Strauss finds it convenient to maintain that 
the cure of so-called demoniacs was produced by others ; 
that, in fact, it was not so uncommon. He appeals to 
the instance narrated by Josephus, of the cure effected 
in the presence of Vespasian, 2 and to the question of 
Christ : "by whom do your children cast them out ? " 
So that, after all, this relief of less aggravated forms 
of nervousness is not a distinguishing act of Christ 
which could serve to attest his Messiahship. There 
is obviously no reason, beyond the necessities of a 
theory, why it should be allowed that Christ relieved 
this kind of infirmity, to the exclusion of all the other 
instances of healing, together with the raising of the 
dead to life, which are equally well attested. Nor are 
we assisted to understand how the disciples were so 
easily satisfied with the omission of all the other forms 
of miracle which they believed to be indissolubly con- 
nected with the Messiah's appearance. When they 
saw Jesus pass by the blind, the lame, the dumb, 
the leprous, even the severe forms of demoniacal frenzy, 
and do nothing greater than to quiet the less afflicted 
subjects of nervous hallucination, which others were in 
the habit of doing as well, how could they consider 

1 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 106 ; B. II. s. 43, 45. 

2 Jos., Antiq. VIII. 2, 5. 
23 



354 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

him the Messiah? We cannot avoid perceiving that 
the same cause which is thought to have led irresistibly 
to the forming of imaginary miracles, would have 
effectually precluded a faith not sustained by miracles 
which were real. 

II. The mythical theory is fully disproved by the 
fact of the absence of any body of disciples to whom 
the origination and dissemination of the myths can be 
attributed. 

The advocates of this theory prefer to use vague 
terms and phrases in speaking of the source whence 
the so-called Christian mythology came. It sprung, 
says Strauss, from the enthusiasm of the infant church. 
But when he is called upon to explain his meaning 
more precisely, he admits that neither the apostles nor 
the community which was under their immediate guid- 
ance could have been the authors of these fictitious 
narratives. That the followers of Christ, who had 
attended him through his public life, could mistakenly 
suppose themselves to have been eyewitnesses of the 
series of miracles which the Gospels record, is too 
much for Strauss to believe. He claims that the 
apostles in their Epistles, or in such as he concedes to 
be genuine, do not bring forward the prior miracles, 
but dwell on the Resurrection of Christ. So far as 
they do not speak of the earlier miracles, the circum- 
stance is readily explained, if we suppose them to have 
been familiar to the churches to whom the apostles 



NONE TO ORIGINATE MYTHS. 355 

wrote, and remember that, in the view of the apostles, 
the grand fact of the Saviour's Resurrection stood in the 
foreground, eclipsing, as it were, the displays of super- 
natural power which had preceded it. In the discourses 
of the apostles, recorded in Acts, these prior miracles 
are appealed to. But Strauss, be it observed, contends, 
and is obliged to contend, that the apostles were igno- 
rant of any such miraculous events as these which the 
evangelists record. The myths did not originate with- 
in the circle of their oversight and influence. This 
would be evidently true, whoever were disposed to 
deny it ; but Strauss concedes and claims that such is 
the fact. Where, then, did these myths grow up? 
Who were their authors ? To this fundamental ques- 
tion the advocates of the mythical theory vouchsafe 
only the briefest response. Yet Strauss does say that 
they grew up among the dwellers in more secluded 
places in Galilee where Christ had tarried but a short 
time, and among those who had occasionally, or at sea- 
sons, companied with him. 1 There was, then, if we are 
to give credit to the mythical hypothesis, a community 
of Jewish-Christian disciples in Palestine, separate from 
the apostles and the Christian flocks over which they 
presided, and in that community, within thirty or forty 
years after the death of Christ, this extensive and 
coherent cycle of miraculous tales originated. We say 
a community, because a myth is not the conscious in- 
vention of an individual, or a conscious invention at all, 

1 Leben Jesu } B. I. s. 72. Streitschr., s. 46. 



356 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

but an offshoot of the collective faith and feeling of a 
body of people. 1 If, in certain cases, it proceeds from 
the fancy of an individual, it is presupposed that he 
stands in the midst of a sympathetic and responsive 
community who receive without scrutiny whatever falls 
in with the current of their feelings. We say " with- 
in thirty or forty years after the death of Christ," be- 
cause in this period Strauss himself places the bulk of 
the so-called myths which are found in the New Testa- 
ment. 2 Now, in reference to this extraordinary solu- 
tion of the enigma as to the authorship of the myths, 
we offer several remarks. 

In the first place, it must strike the reader as a 
singular fact that there is no evidence whatever of the 
existence of such a non- apostolic Christian community 
in the midst of Palestine. The assumption that a set 
of believers of this description existed in Galilee, re- 
moved from the knowledge and guidance of the apos- 
tles, is not supported by the slightest proof, and is in 
the highest degree improbable. The disciples of Christ, 
at the time of his death, were not very numerous. 
There was a sense of unity among them. They formed 
one body. Everything tended to draw them together. 
And the apostles were their recognized heads. It is 
certain, and will hardly be questioned by any one, that 

1 So Strauss. It is most essential to understand, be says, that at 
the foundation of the myth lies — "kein individuelles Bewusstsein, 
sondern ein hoheres allgemeines Volksbewusstsein, (Bewusstsein 
einer religiosen Gemeinde.") Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 89. 

2 Streitschr.. s. 52. 



NONE TO ORIGINATE MYTHS. 357 

the other disciples looked up to " the twelve " as their 
guides, and leaned on them for support and counsel. 

But how could persons in the situation attributed 
to these obscure disciples, come to believe, or remain 
in the belief, that Jesus was the Messiah? We have 
shown the improbability that the apostles believed 
without miracles. But the difficulty of supposing 
these other hearers of Christ to have believed, in the 
absence of such evidence of his divine commission, is 
much greater. It is a part of the hypothesis that they 
knew comparatively little of Jesus, for to allow them 
an intimate knowledge of him would put them in the 
same category, as to the possibility of framing myths, 
with the apostles themselves. They had seen little of 
Jesus ; they had seen none of the supernatural signs 
expected of the Messiah ; he had wholly disappointed 
their idea that the Messiah was to be an earthly prince ; 
and, finally, he had perished by the death of a culprit, 
which he endured without resistance, God not appear- 
ing to deliver him. Is it not inexplicable that casual 
hearers of Christ, who were thus placed, having seen, 
be it remembered, no miracle for their faith to rest 
upon, should continue to believe — believe, too, without 
a misgiving, with the childish simplicity and enthusi- 
asm which are requisite for the creation of mythological 
tales ? 

Such hearers must have originally cherished the 
ordinary expectation concerning the Messiah, that he 
would sit, in the character of a temporal Prince, 



358 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

upon the throne of David and bring into subjec- 
tion the heathen nations. The myths they would 
frame, if they framed any, would be in keeping with 
this expectation. A radical change in their conception 
of the Messiah would require us to suppose, at least, 
that they were well acquainted with the actual career of 
Jesus. But here, again, an acquaintance of this sort 
with the real facts of his history shuts out, by Strauss's 
own admission, the possibility of their connecting with 
his life a cycle of myths. 1 

But if we admit what is incredible, that a class 
of disciples of this character existed, and existed in 
such circumstances that they actually produced through 
the mythopceic faculty, and set in circulation, the nar- 
ratives of which we have a record in the New Testa- 
ment, we are not then clear of half of the difficulty. 
How can we suppose all this to be done with no 
knowledge or interference on the part of the apostles 
and other well-informed contemporaries to whom the 
facts of the life of Christ were well known ? It will 
not be claimed that this mass of mythological narrative 
was shut up in the nooks and corners where it came 
into being. This pretended seclusion of the ill-informed 
believers in Christ, could hardly have been kept up for 
the whole generation during which the apostles traversed 

1 In this paragraph and in several remarks in the paragraphs 
which immediately follow under this head, we have been anticipated 
by Professor Norton, Internal Evidence of the Genuineness of the 
Gospels, ch. i. He is one of the few writers in English who have 
correctly apprehended Strauss. 



THE GOSPEL AS RECEIVED BY THE GENTILES. 359 

Galilee and ministered to the church. The Jewish 
Christians continued to come rip to Jerusalem to the 
great festivals ; did these Galilean believers stay away 
from them ? How happens it, we beg to know, that 
this type of belief, so foreign from that of the eyewit- 
nesses and authorized apostles of Jesus, found no con- 
tradiction or exposure ? 

But an objection still more formidable remains to 
be stated. From whom did the Gentiles receive Chris- 
tianity, and what type of Christianity did they receive ? 
The new religion had been carried from Jerusalem to 
Rome before the death of Paul and Peter. Was it 
from the simple folk whose imagination is credited with 
the origin of the miracles — was it from them who 
knew so little of Christ as to indulge in these uncerti- 
fied fancies, and too little of the apostles to have their 
self-delusion corrected — was it from these obscure dis- 
ciples that Christianity went forth to the Gentile world ? 
Did they have the energy to assume the missionary 
work confided to the apostles, while these and all the 
well-informed followers of the Messiah rested in idle- 
ness ? And had they the ability to command a hear- 
ing and to crown the new religion with rapid and 
glorious success ? It would be preposterous, in the 
face of probability and against all the evidence we 
possess, to assert this. The Christianity of the Gentile 
churches was apostolic Christianity. Their teachers 
were such as Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas, 
Silas and Timothy. Their conception of the history 



360 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

of Christ on earth was derived from the apostles and 
the Christian believers associated with them. Now, 
all of the canonical Gospels, except the first, are Gen- 
tile Gospels. The third was written by a Gentile, and 
this, together with the second and fourth, were written 
for Gentiles. Gentile Christianity did not flow from 
that quarter — that terra incognita — where the myths 
are said to have sprung up and been received. How 
then shall we account for the character of the Gentile 
Gospels, and, in particular, for the representation of 
the life of Christ which they contain ! The conclusion 
is inevitable that this representation, including the 
narratives of miracles, was a part of that Christianity 
which the apostles believed and taught. But when 
this admission is made, the mythical theory breaks 
down ; since, as we have before mentioned, Strauss 
admits that, in case these narratives are false, apostles 
and others who were well acquainted with Christ could 
neither have originated them nor have been persuaded 
to lend them credence. 

III. The genuineness of the canonical Gospels, the 
proof of which it is found impossible to invalidate, is 
a decisive argument against the mythical theory. 

Considering the importance of the subject, the 
observations of Strauss upon the authorship and date 
of the Gospels are very meagre. He denies, indeed, 
that we can prove a general circulation of* Gospel 
histories during the lifetime of the apostles, or that 



GENUINENESS OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS. ol31 

our present Gospels were known to them. 1 At one 
time he was inclined to admit that John was the author 
of the fourth Gospel, but seeing, probably, the fatal con- 
sequences resulting to his theory from this concession, 
he withdrew it in a subsequent edition. But the propo- 
sition that John wrote the Gospel which bears his name, 
is supported by such an array of external and internal 
evidence as must convince an unprejudiced mind of 
its truth. In respect to this Gospel, Strauss and his 
friends are obliged to abandon the mythical hypothesis 
and to pronounce its contents the deliberate fabrica- 
tions of a pretender who chose to subserve a doctrinal 
interest by assuming the character of John. The 
needless audacity which would lead a literary impostor 
in the second century to present a view of the course 
of Christ's life, which when compared with the previous 
established conception, is, in many respects, so original 
and peculiar, and his complete success in winning the 
confidence of the churches in all quarters of the Roman 
world, are mysteries not to be explained. The patristic 
testimonies to the genuineness of the Gospels of Luke 
and of Mark, as well as to the relation in which they 
severally stood to Paul and Peter, cannot be success- 
fully impugned. Luke's preface to his Gospel har- 
monizes with the tradition of the church concerning 
him. His informants, he there states, were immediate 
disciples of Christ. He had acquired from the original 
sources " a perfect understanding " of the matters on 

1 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 72. 



362 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

which he wrote. Of Mark and his Gospel, we have 
an early account in the fragment of Papias, whose birth 
fell within the apostolic age, and who drew his infor- 
mation from the contemporaries and associates of the 
apostles. 1 When Papias states that Mark, having been 
the interpreter of Peter, and derived his knowledge of 
Christ from him, wrote down " the things spoken or 
done by our Lord/ 5 though not observing, as to. the 
discourses at least, the historical order, he describes, 
without doubt, our second Gospel. 2 If there are criti- 
cal questions pertaining to the authorship of the first 
Gospel, about which even believing scholars are not 
yet agreed, it is even more evident concerning this 
than any of the others that it emanates from the bosom 
of the apostolic Church. Of this, the evidence, exter- 
nal and internal, leaves no room for doubt. 3 

Renan, in his recent Life of Christ, has the 

1 Whether Papias was, or was not, acquainted with the Apostle 
John himself, is a disputed point. Irenaeus affirms it, but Eusebius 
is inclined to consider his statement an uncertain inference from the 
language of Papias. Euseb., Lib. III. c. 39. 

2 Whether the want of historical order is attributed by Papias to 
the record of the "things said" alone, or of "the things done " as 
well, depends on the sense of \6yta in the passage — a question which 
we have elsewhere considered. 

3 The critical questions to which we allude, are clearly stated by 
Meyer in the Einl. to his Com. on Matt., and Bleek in his Einl. in d. 
ffl. T. These questions do not affect the date of the Gospel, nor its 
origin in the apostolic Church. Meyer's view depends on his restric- 
tion of the sense of \6yia — in the ra \6yia awsTa^aro of Papias — 
which is not made out. On the other hand, Bleek's hypothesis leaves 
the early tradition concerning the authorship unexplained. 



renan's concessions. 363 

candor to acknowledge the early date of the evangelical 
histories, and, in general, though his views are here 
not free from inconsistency as well as error, their 
apostolical origin. He says that the composition of 
the Gospels was " one of the most important events 
to the future of Christianity which occurred daring the 
second half of the first century} As to Luke, " doubt 
is hardly possible." 2 " The author of this Gospel is 
certainly the same as the author of the Acts of the 
Apostles. Now the author of the Acts is a companion 
of St. Paul, a title perfectly suited to Luke." " One 
thing at least is beyond doubt, that the author of the 
third Gospel and of the Acts is a man of the second 
apostolic generation." " Chapter xxi., inseparable from 
the rest of the work, was certainly written after the 
siege of Jerusalem, but soon after!' "But if the 
Gospel of Luke is dated, those of Matthew and Mark 
are also ; for it is certain that the third Gospel is pos- 
terior to the first two, and presents the character 
of a compilation (redaction) much more advanced." 3 

1 P. xiv. 2 P. xvi. 

3 Although we have more fully discussed these questions in other 
parts of this volume, we may observe here that whatever Papias 
meant by the \6yia of Matthew — whether the discourses alone, or the 
narratives also — Eenan errs decidedly in saying that the Matthew 
which was known to Papias was simply the discourses (in Hebrew). 
When Papias says that the Xoyia were written in Hebrew and 
■qpjxrjvevae §' avra cos rjduvaro eKcta-ros, he speaks of things in the past. 
It is certain that Papias had the first Gospel in its complete form, in 
the Greek. (See Meyer's Einl. z. Matt., s. 11. N\) It is certain that 
the first Gospel had its present form before the date of the destruc- 



364 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

Mark, we are told, " though not absolutely free from 
later additions, is essentially as he wrote it." " He is 

tion of Jerusalem. (Meyer, Einl. z. Matt., s. 21.) But Renan con- 
cedes that the second Gospel is " but a slightly modified reproduc- 
tion" of "the collection of anecdotes and personal information which 
Mark wrote from Peter's reminiscences." P. 22. There is no 
proof whatever that Mark's work has undergone any "modification," 
if we except one or two passages which are thought by critics to be 
interpolated. The school of Baur have, to be sure, made Papias 
refer to an "Ur-Markus," a work supposed to be prior to, and the 
basis of, our second Gospel. But our Mark corresponds to the des- 
cription given by Papias ; so that the sole argument of the Baur 
school for their view is unfounded. The writers of the second cen- 
tury know nothing of any other work ascribed to Mark except our 
second Gospel. It is an incontrovertible fact that this Gospel icas 
composed by John Mark, an associate of the apostles. The Baur school 
have made an attempt, which we are justified in terming desperate, 
to bring down the date of the writings of Luke to the early part of 
the second century. But apart from all the other evidences in the 
case, Baur's own method of argument requires him to suppose, and 
he does suppose, that the generation — yevea — spoken of in Luke xxi. 
32, still subsisted when the Gospel was written. But this term will 
not bear the loose sense which he gives it. We have set forth in 
another Essay the proof of the early date of the Acts. It is enough 
to state here, that the circumstance of the writer's making no use of 
the Epistles of Paul, in composing his work, is an insoluble fact on 
Baur's theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that the third Gospel 
and the Acts were written by Luke, an associate of Paul. The con- 
jecture of Renan that the first two Gospels gradually borrowed 
anecdotes from each other, would be inconsistent with. the agreement 
in the copies of each which were extant in the different parts of the 
world in the third century, and is, moreover, supported by no proof. 
But in holding that Luke was composed about the year TO, that Mark 
remains substantially as he wrote it, and that both Matthew and 
Mark are earlier than Luke, Renan admits all that we ask in the 
present discussion. 



eenan's concessions. 365 

full of minute observations coming without doubt from 
an eyewitness. Nothing opposes the idea that this 
eyewitness, who evidently had followed Jesus, who had 
loved him and known him intimately, and who had 
preserved a lively image of him, was the Apostle Peter 
himself, as Papias says/' l If the view presented by 
Penan concerning the origin of the fourth Gospel is 
less satisfactory, it is yet sufficient for the refutation of 
the leading propositions of Strauss. He holds that 
" in substance this Gospel issued, towards the end of 
the third century, from the great school of Asia Minor, 
which held to John — that it presents to us a version 
of the Master's life, worthy of high consideration and 
often of preference." 2 If the work was not by John, 
there is " a deception which the author confessed to 
himself" — a literary fact, says Penan, unexampled in 
the apostolic world. The Tubingen doctrine of its 
being "a theological thesis without historical value" is 
not borne out, but rather refuted, by an examination 
of the work. 3 In a " multitude of cases," it sheds 
needed light upon the Synoptics. " The last months 
of the life of Jesus, in particular, are explained only by 
John." The school of John was "better acquainted 
with the external circumstances of the life of the 
founder than the group whose memories made up the 
synoptic Gospels. It had, especially in regard to the 
sojourns of Jesus at Jerusalem, data which the others 
did not possess'." 4 The conclusion appears to be that 

1 P. xxxviii. - P. xxy. s P. xxix. 4 P. xxxiii. 



366 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

the narrative portions of the fourth Gospel are from 
the pen of John ; and as to Renan's opinion of the 
origin of the discourses, we are left in doubt, for now 
he attributes them, and now denies them, to John. 
As to the last point, the record of the discourses is 
obviously from the same pen that wrote the rest of the 
Gospel and, also, the first Epistle which bears the 
name of John, the genuineness of which Renan will 
not deny. The statements of Renan in respect to the 
origin of the Gospels approximate to the truth. They 
are the admissions of a man of learning and a skeptic. 
They demolish the mythical theory as defined by 
Strauss. The evidence which proves the Gospels to be 
the productions of the apostles or their associates, at the 
same time subverts an essential part of that theory. 
In truth, every argument for the genuineness of the 
Gospels is just as strong an argument for their credi- 
bility. 

IV. The mythical hypothesis falls to the ground 
from the lack of a sufficient interval between the >death 
of Christ and the promulgation, in a written as well as 
oral form, of the narratives of miracles. 

We were led, under the last head, in speaking of 
the genuineness of the Gospels, to allude to the subject 
of their date. There are grave difficulties connected 
with the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of 
Matthew, but the apologist has, perhaps, a compensa- 
tion in the demonstration afforded by them that the 



NO TIME FOR A MYTHOLOGY TO ARISE. 367 

document of which they are a part was composed in 
its present form before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
The date of Luke, as before observed, is not far from 
that of Matthew. But we discover on inspection that 
a large portion of the matter contained in each of the 
first three Gospels appears, frequently in identical lan- 
guage, in the other two. Among the various hypothe- 
ses suggested to account for this peculiarity, it is held 
by some that Matthew was the earliest written of the 
three, and that a portion of Matthew was incorporated 
by Mark and Luke in their Gospels ; while others 
maintain that Mark was the original Gospel and fur- 
nished the other two with the matter that is common 
to all. It has besn, however, contended with much 
force of argument, that prior to the composition of 
either of the three, an original gospel, containing the 
matter to which we refer, must have existed, and existed 
in a written form. This earlier record of the teachings 
and miracles of Christ antedates, therefore, our present 
Gospels, and is a written monument standing still nearer 
the events. But whether this be, or be not, the true 
solution of the peculiarity in question, we have from 
Luke decisive proof of the early composition of written 
histories of Christ, in which the miracles had a place. 
"Many" such histories of what was "surely believed" 
in the apostolic church, Luke states, had already been 
composed. The Hebraized diction of various parts of 
his Gospel, differing from his own style, is a sufficient 
proof that he wrought into it portions of prior records. 



368 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

This information, which comes from Luke, be it remem- 
bered, only a few years after the death of Paul, 
implies that there had been a desire among Christians 
for authentic lives of Christ, and that numerous narra- 
tives had been written to meet the want. It has been 
made probable, we may add, that the Apostle Paul 
made use of a written gospel, and although we cannot 
affirm that this document was more than a collection 
of the sayings and discourses of Christ, 1 yet the exist- 
ence of it is an indication of the necessity that must 
have been felt for authentic records of the life of the 
Lord, and, also, of the ease with which, owing to the 
spread of Greek culture, this demand could be satisfied. 
For, as Neander observes, this was not the age of the 
rhapsodist, but an age of written composition. 

We are thus, through the testimony of Luke, in 
our search for written narratives of the miracles of 
Christ, brought back into the heart of the apostolic age 
and to a point of time not far from the events 
themselves. We are obliged to allow that the New 
Testament miracles were not only believed by the 
generation of Christians contemporary with the apostles 
and under their guidance, but were, also, within twenty 
or thirty years, at the longest, after the death of Jesus 
recorded in written narratives. Now this interval is 
altogether too short for the growth of a Christian 
mythology. Unlike something made by the will, this 

1 See Neander's Leben Jesu, s. 10. Pflanz. u. Leit. &. Kirche, s. 
173 seq. 



DISPROVED BY THE CHARACTER OF THE TIMES. 369 

must be the fruit of a long brooding over the incidents 
in the career of Christ and the prophecies relating to 
him. We cannot conceive this cloud of myths to 
arise, when the real circumstances in the life of Christ 
had just occurred and were fresh in the recollection of 
those who had known him. The sharp outlines of fact 
must first be effaced from memory before the humble 
career of Jesus could be invested by the imagination 
with a misty, unreal splendor. The sudden ascription 
to him of these numerous acts of miraculous power 
would be a psychological wonder. Strauss is not 
insensible to the force of this objection. His answer 
is that these narratives were, in a sense, prepared in 
the messianic expectations of the people, and it was 
only needful that they should be connected with Jesus. 
But there is a wide gulf between the general anticipa- 
tion that the Messiah, when he should come, would 
heal the different forms of disease and outdo the works 
of the old prophets, and the concrete, circumstantial 
narratives which we find in the Gospels. Strauss fails, 
therefore, to evade the force of the objection, and it 
stands, an insurmountable obstacle in the way of his 
theory. 

V. The mythical theory is incompatible with the 
character of the times in which Christ appeared. 

It was an historical age ; that is, an age in which 

history is studied, historical truth discriminated from 

error, evidence weighed ; an age in which skepticism 
24 



370 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

is found ; in which, also, written records exist. It 
was the age of Tacitus and Josephus ; the age when 
the influence of Greek culture and Roman law were 
felt to the remotest bounds of the empire. It was, 
moreover, an age when history had seemingly run its 
course and the process of decay had set in. How 
unlike the periods when a people, given up to the 
sway of sentiment and imagination, builds up its 
mythologic creations, never raising the question as 
to their truth or falsehood ! Let us hear Mr. Grote 
upon the characteristics of a myth-producing age. 
" The myths," writes the historian, " were generally 
produced in an age which had no records, no philoso- 
phy, no criticism, no canon of belief, and scarcely any 
tincture of astronomy or geography ; but which, on 
the other hand, was full of religious faith, distinguished 
for quick and susceptible imagination, seeing personal 
agents where we only look for objects and laws ; — an 
age, moreover, eager for new narrative, accepting with 
the unconscious impressibility of children (the question 
of truth or falsehood being never formally raised), all 
which ran in harmony with its preexisting feelings, 
and penetrable by inspired poets and prophets in the 
same proportion that it was indifferent to positive 
evidence." 1 It is true that the operation of the 
mythopoeic faculty is not absolutely extinct in a more 
cultured time ; yet its peculiar province is the child- 
hood of a people. As Grote elsewhere says, " to 

1 Grote, Vol. I. p. 451. 



CHARACTER OF A MYTHICAL ERA. 371 

understand properly the Grecian myths, we must 
try to identify ourselves with the state of mind of the 
original mythopoeic age • a process not very easy, 
since it requires us to adopt a string of poetical 
fancies not simply as realities, but as the governing 
realities of the mental system • yet a process which 
would only reproduce something analogous to our own 
childhood." Of the point of view from which the 
myths were looked upon by the Greek, he adds : 
" Nor need we wonder that the same plausibility 
which captivated his imagination and his feelings was 
sufficient to engender spontaneous belief; or rather 
that no question as to the truth or falsehood of the 
narrative suggested itself to his mind. His faith is 
ready, literal, and uninquiring, apart from all thought 
of discriminating fact from fiction." If we turn to the 
age of Augustus, we find a condition of society at a 
world-wide remove from this primitive era of sentiment 
and fancy. Some are deceived by the supposed 
analogy of the middle ages, which, however, were 
wholly different, and more resembled the ancient 
nations in their period of immaturity. The Greek 
and Roman literature and science had passed away. 
Christianity, with its doctrines and miracles, had been 
received by the fresh, uncivilized peoples of Europe, 
and these, full of the new sentiments and beliefs which 
were awakened by Christianity, dwelling, so to speak, 
in an atmosphere of the supernatural, created the mass 
of mythical stories which fill up the voluminous lives 



372 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

of the saints. It was the work of unlettered, imagina- 
tive, uninquiring peoples, on the basis and under the 
stimulus of the miraculous history of the Gospels. 
" Such legends," says Mr. Grote, " were the natural 
growth of a religious faith, earnest, unexamining, and 
interwoven with the feelings at a time when the reason 
does not need to be cheated. The lives of the saints 
bring us even back to the simple and ever-operative 
theology of the Homeric age." * Totally different was 
the state of things among the old nations at the advent 
of Christianity. We must not forget that, so far as 
intellectual development is concerned, along with the 
downfall of ancient civilization the tides of history 
rolled back. New nations came upon the stage and 
a period of childhood ensued. Dr. Arnold, writing 
to Bunsen, points out the anachronism involved in 
Strauss's theory. " The idea," exclaims Arnold, " of 
men writing mythic histories between the time of Livy 
and Tacitus, and of St. Paul mistaking such for reali- 

1 Grote, Yol. I. p. 471. As to the loose habit of observation and 
great inaccuracy of mediaeval writers in describing ordinary objects, 
which justly excite incredulity in regard to their stories of miracles, 
see Dr. Arnold's Lectures on History, p. 128. He gives an instance 
of this carelessness from Bede, who was reputed the most learned 
man of his age. " I cannot think,' T says Arnold, " that the unbeliev- 
ing spirit of the Bornan world was equally favorable to the origina- 
tion and admission of stories of miracles with the credulous tenden- 
cies of the middle ages." (P. 129.) No doubt bodily austerities, 
vigils, fastings, and the like, together with the spirit of unbounded 
credulity, might produce extraordinary phenomena, which could 
easily be mistaken for miracles. 



CHARACTER OF A MYTHICAL ERA. 373 

ties ! " * Strauss labors hard to create a different 
impression in respect to the character of the age of the 
apostles. He appeals to the occasional mention of 
prodigies by Tacitus and Josephus — as the super- 
natural sights and sounds attending the capture of 
Jerusalem. But if current reports of this sort of 
preternatural manifestation convict an age of an unhis- 
torical spirit, there is no state of society that would 
not be liable to this charge. Even skeptics, like 
Hobbes, have not escaped the infection of superstitious 
fear. These passages in Josephus and Tacitus are 
chiefly remarkable as being exceptions to the ordinary 
style of their narratives. Strauss endeavors to make 
much of the two alleged miracles of Vespasian, at 
Alexandria, which are noticed by Tacitus and also by 
Suetonius. But whatever may have been the fact at 
the bottom, the circumstances in the narrative of 
Tacitus afford a striking exemplification of the histor- 
ical spirit of the times, and, thus, of the falsehood of 
Strauss's general position. When the application was 
made to Vespasian by the individuals on whom the 
cures are said to have been wrought, he laughed at 
their request and " treated it with contempt." 2 The 



1 Life and Correspondence of Arnold, p. 293, N". 

2 Vespasian behaved like William of Orange, who sneered at the 
old practice of touching for the king's evil. This behavior of William 
gave great scandal to not a few. (See Macaulay's Hist, of England, 
Harper's ed., Vol. III. p. 432 seq.). Many invalids resorted to the 
king to be touched. Yet who will infer that the age of William was 




374 MYTHICAL THEORY OE STRAUSS. 

applicants being importunate in their request, and 
pretending to make it by the direction of the god 
Serapis, Vespasian had a talk with the physicians, who 
stated the nature of the diseases and were quite non- 
committal on the question whether the Emperor could 
effect a cure in the manner desired. The entire 
passage in Tacitus shows at least a full consciousness 
that the event is wholly anomalous and not to be 
accepted without satisfactory proof. The truth is, 
that the creative period in the ancient nations when 
the mythological religions sprung up, had long ago 
passed by. Even the belief in them was fast crum- 
bling away and yielding to skepticism. This engen- 
dered, to be sure, a superstition to fill up the void 
occasioned by the destruction of the old belief. Hence 
magic and sorcery were rife. The professors of the 
black art, to use a more modern phrase, drove a 
lucrative business, and found credulous followers, as 
the apostles discovered in their missionary journeys. 
But this despairing superstition was a phenomenon 
lying at the opposite pole from that action of the 
mythopceic tendency which belongs, as we have 
explained, to the freshness of youth. Pilate spoke 



not an " historical " age, or suppose that a mythology could have 
arisen in England in the seventeenth century and established itself in 
the popular faith ? 

It is remarkable how often the cures by Vespasian have been 
made to figure in skeptical treatises. Hume dwells on them in his 
Essay on Miracles. 



-THE AGE OF THE GOSPELS NOT MYTHOPGEIC. 375 

out the feelings of the cultivated Roman in the 
skeptical question, What is truth? Nor is Strauss 
more successful in the attempt to find among the 
Jews, in particular, a condition of society suitable for 
the origination of myths. Prophecy had long since 
died out. A stiff legalism, with its " traditions of the 
elders," had chilled the free movement of religious 
life. Nor is it true that among the Jews, in the time 
of Christ, a miracle had only to be stated to be be- 
lieved. Miracles (unless exorcism be reckoned one) 
were not supposed to occur. They were considered 
to belong to an era of their history long past. A 
miracle was an astounding fact. " Since the world 
began," it was said (John ix. 32), "was it not heard 
that any man opened the eyes of one that was born 
blind." 1 The Gospels are full of parables, allegories, 
showing a state of mind, in teacher and hearer, incon- 
sistent with the production of myths. In the parable, 
the idea is held in an abstract form, and a fiction is 
contrived to represent it. Ottfried Miiller, in answer 
to the question, how long the myth-building spirit 
continues, explains that the fusion or confounding of 
idea and fact, which constitutes the myth, could take 
place only so long as the habit did not exist of pre- 
senting the one apart from the other — either idea 
apart from narrative, or narrative apart from the 
mythopceic idea. But wmen ideas are apprehended 
as such, in an abstract form., or veracious history is 

1 See also Matt. ix. 33. 



376 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

written, the mythical era is gone. 1 So far from there 
being a reign of credulity, there existed, in the Sad- 
ducees, an outspoken skeptical party who regarded 
with coldness and suspicion the supernatural elements 
in their own religion. How could myths arise among 
those who listened to debates like that which Matthew 
records between Christ and the Sadducees, " who say 
that there is no resurrection ? " 2 So far from there 
being among the Jews in the time of Christ an irre- 
sistible tendency to glorify the object of reverence by 
attributing to him miraculous works, it is a fact, of 
which the advocates of the mythical theory can give no 
plausible explanation, that no miracles are ascribed to 
John the Baptist, though he was considered in the early 
Church to be inferior to no prophet who had preceded 
him. If there was this unreflecting and credulous 
habit which is imputed to the Jewish Christians, why 
is no instance of miraculous healing interwoven in the 
description which the Gospels give us of the career of 
the forerunner of Jesus ? He was supernaturally ena- 
bled to designate the Messiah, but he himself, though 
he is characterized in terms of exalted praise, is not 
represented as endowed with supernatural power. It 
is, also, significant that the life of Jesus^ up to the 
time of his entrance upon his public ministry, is left 
an almost unbroken blank. Had the disciples given 

1 Prolegomena, s. 170. 

2 Matt. xxii. 23 seq. Julius Mtiller refers to this passage in his 
cogent review of Strauss, in the Studien u. KritiJcen, 1836, III. 



THE AGE OE THE GOSPELS NOT MYTHOP(EIC. 377 

the reins to their imagination, as the theory of' Strauss 
supposes, they would almost infallibly have filled up 
the childhood of Christ with myths, after the manner 
of the spurious gospels df a later date. 1 But Mark 
and John pass over in silence the whole of the prepara- 
tory period of thirty years. Matthew passes immedi- 
ately from his birth and infancy to his public ministry, 
while Luke interposes but a single anecdote of his 
childhood. Why this remarkable reticence, unless the 
reason be that the apostles chose to dwell upon that of 
which they had a direct, personal knowledge ? 

It may be objected to the foregoing remarks, that 
the original authors of the mythical narratives are sup- 
posed to be persons aloof from the great world and 
beyond the influence of its culture — Galileans of hum- 
ble rank. The existence of a class of disciples, cut off 
from the guidance of the apostles, has before been dis- 
proved. But apart from this, the supposed authors of 
the myths were reflective enough to discriminate between 
the parable and the abstract relations represented under 
it. They were acquainted with the questions debated 
between the Sadducees and their opponents. Besides, 
it is undeniable that a spirit of opposition to Christ and 
his cause existed, ^ftd must have existed, wherever he 
had preached. The vindictive hostility of the Pharisees 
and rulers caused his death. In Galilee, as well as 

1 The Apocryphal Gospels were generally the offspring of pious 
fraud. They were composed, for the most part, to further the cause 
of some heretical doctrine or party. 



378 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

Jerusalem, he had to encounter unbelief and enmity. 
Aside from the fact that the pharisaic influence rami- 
fied through the land, it appears that at Capernaum, 
Chorazin, Bethsaida, Nazareth, there were unbelievers 
and opposers. 1 There was a strong disposition among 
these to disprove the messianic claim of Jesus and to 
invalidate, in some way, the proofs on which it rested. 
There could be no disciples of Jesus — to say the least, 
no considerable number of disciples — who would not 
be instantly called upon to make good their cause in 
the encounter with objections and cavils. This 
necessity, if nothing else, would force them to 
reflection, and would thus break up the attitude of 
unquestioning fancy and blind credulity. They must 
give a reason for the faith that is in them. They must 
do this to the very persons among whom the incidents, 
on which their faith was grounded, were alleged to 
have recently occurred. The mythopceic faculty can- 
not work, it is clear, under a cross-examination. 
Fancy cannot go on with its creations in the midst 
of an atmosphere of doubt and unfriendly scrutiny. 
The state of the Church was the very opposite of that 
repose on which alone a mythology can have its birth. 
It holds true that the application oflhe mythical theory 
to the testimony of the early disciples, is a gross ana- 
chronism. 

1 It is one theory of the Tubingen school that the Pharisees 
followed Jesus into Galilee and that the hostility they felt to him 
was provoked there. 



DISPROVED BY THE RESURRECTION. 379 

VI. The mythical theory is unable either to 
account for the faith of the apostles in the Resurrec- 
tion of Christ, or to disprove the fact which was the 
object of this faith. 

Strauss finds it impossible to deny that the apos- 
tles, one and all, believed that Jesus had risen from the 
dead and that they had held various interviews and 
conversations with him. This miracle, at least, it 
must be admitted that tliey received. Without this 
faith, their continued adherence to the cause of Jesus 
would hardly be explainable. And this fact was a 
main part of their preaching and testimony. It 
was immovably lodged in their convictions. More- 
over, the Apostle Paid, in an Epistle whose genuine- 
ness is not disputed, is a witness to the existence of 
this belief and testimony on the part of the other 
apostles. He knew them ; he had spent a fortnight 
with Peter in his own house. He had declared to the 
Corinthians, he says, that Christ died " and was 
buried, and that he rose again the third day, accord- 
ing to the Scriptures ; and that he was seen of 
Cephas, then of the twelve : after that he was seen 
of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the 
greater part remain to this present, but some are 
fallen asleep ; after that he was seen of James ; then 
of all the apostles." The whole manner of Paul indi- 
cates that he is giving the result of a careful inquiry. 
That the apostles believed, with a faith which no oppo- 
sition could shake, that they had thus beheld the risen 



380 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

Jesus, there is, therefore, no room for doubt. The 
main question is, how came they to this persuasion ? 
The Gospel narratives furnish the explanation by de- 
scribing his actual reappearance, and repeated confer- 
ences with them. Rejecting the miracle, Strauss 
is obliged to undertake the task, by no means a light 
one, of accounting for their unanimous belief in it ; for 
the belief, also, of the assembly of more than five 
hundred disciples to whose testimony Paul refers. 

The principal points in Strauss's attempted expla- 
nation are the following : * Christ had more and more 
impressed the disciples with the conviction that he was 
the Messiah. His death, so contrary to their previous 
conceptions of what the Messiah's career would be, 
for the time extinguished this conviction. But after 
the first shock was over, their previous impression 
concerning Christ revived. Hence the psychological 
necessity of incorporating into their notion of the 
Messiah the idea that he was to suffer and die. But 
as comprehending a thing, among the Jews of that 
time, only signified the deriving of it from the Holy 
Scriptures, the apostles resorted to these to see whether 
there might not be in them intimations that the Mes- 
siah was to suffer and die. This idea, Strauss affirms, 
was foreign to the Old Testament ; nevertheless, the 
apostles would find the intimations, which they wished 
to find, in all the poetic and prophetic passages of the 
Old Testament, as Isaiah liii., Psalm xxii., in which 

1 Leben Jesu, s. 636 seq. 



THE THEORY OF STRAUSS STATED. 381 

the men of God were represented as persecuted even 
to death. This obstacle surmounted, and having now 
a suffering, dying Messiah, it followed next that Christ 
was not lost, but still remained to them : through 
death, he had only entered into his messianic glory, in 
which he was invisibly with them, always, even to the 
end of the world. Having advanced so far, they 
would be moved to ask themselves how it was possible 
that he should refrain from personally communicating 
with them ? And how could they, in the warmth of 
feeling kindled by this unveiling to them of the 
Scriptural doctrine of a suffering and dying Messiah, 
avoid regarding this new discovery as the effect of an 
influence exerted upon them by the glorified Christ, 
" an opening of their understandings " by Him — 
"yea" adds Strauss, " as a discoursing ivith them ? n 
These feelings, in the case of individuals, especially 
women, rose into an actual (apparent) vision. In the 
case of others, even of whole assemblies, something 
objective, visible, or audible, perchance the sight of an 
unknown person, made the impression of a revelation 
or manifestation of Jesus. But another step in the 
psychological process was yet to be taken. If the 
crucified Messiah had really ascended to the highest 
state of blessed existence, then his body could not 
have been left in the grave ■ and since there were Old 
Testament expressions, like Psalm xvi. 10, " thou shalt 
not leave my soul in Hades, neither suffer thy Holy 
One to see corruption," and Isaiah liii. 10, in which 



382 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

the slain servant of Jehovah was promised a long life 
afterwards, the disciples could keep their previous 
notion that " Christ abideth forever " (John xii. 34), 
by means of the thought of an actual reawakening of 
the crucified ; and, inasmuch as it was a messianic 
function to raise at a future day the bodies of the 
dead, the return of Jesus to life must be an actual 
anastasis — a resurrection of the body. 

What shall be said of this chain of conjectures? 
We freely admit that all which Strauss asserts on this 
subject is possible. That the followers of Christ came 
to believe in his resurrection in the way above 
described, without the objective fact to excite this 
belief, is not absolutely beyond the bounds of possi- 
bility. It is not pretended that the fact of the miracle 
is susceptible of strict demonstration. Nay, we con- 
cede that if a man holds a miracle, under the circum- 
stances, in connection with the establishment of Chris- 
tianity in this world, to be more improbable than any 
method, which is not literally irrational, of explaining 
it away, he may accept the above solution of Strauss 
But even he cannot shut his eyes to the tremendous 
difficulties which attend that solution. In order to 
set forth some of these difficulties, we must restate 
the hypothesis of Strauss, adding other particulars in 
his view, some of which have not been mentioned. A 
young man — such is the theory of Strauss — comes to 
the baptism of John with the same motive which led 
others to the prophet, and takes his place among his 



THE THEORY OF STRAUSS STATED. 383 

disciples. After John is thrown into prison, he begins 
himself to teach. He draws about him a band of 
disciples. Gradually he comes to believe himself not 
merely a prophet, but even the expected Messiah. 
But at first, though inculcating spiritual truth, he 
shares in the political theory of the Messiah's kingdom 
until the unfavorable reception accorded to him and 
his doctrine modified the view he took of the charac- 
ter and prospects of that kingdom. He may, not 
unlikely, have anticipated that the opposition excited 
against him would, at no very distant day, result in 
his death. But when seized by the Jewish rulers, he 
was not looking for an immediate death. This is a 
point which Strauss is obliged to maintain in order to 
avoid conceding to Christ supernatural knowledge. 
On* a sudden he is seized in the midst of his follow- 
ers, and executed as a culprit. All their expectations 
had been disappointed. They had expected the Mes- 
siah to work miracles ; but they had witnessed none. 
They had looked for a political Prince, and been 
encouraged in their view, for a time, by Jesus himself • 
but behold their imaginary Prince nailed to the cross ! 
He is solemnly adjudged to death by the rulers of the 
nation, by those who sat in Moses' seat ! And the 
civil power of the Romans carries out the sentence I 
He dies, receiving no succor from God, apparently 
incapable of offering resistance ! Add to this that 
they, as was natural, dispersed in terror. Can we, 
adopting Strauss's interpretation of the previous 



384 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

history of Jesus, think that the souls of the disciples 
were enthralled to that degree that they still clung to 
their faith in him ? If Strauss were willing to admit 
that Jesus had before exhibited supernatural powers 
and had performed the miracles recorded of him in the 
Gospels, it would be less difficult to account for a 
mistaken belief of his disciples in his resurrection ; 
but in that case, the motive for discrediting the reality 
of the miracle would no longer exist. But the theory 
of Strauss respecting the previous life of Christ disables 
him from explaining how a myth of this portentous 
character could spring up and obtain universal cre- 
dence among his disciples. There was nothing in the 
Master's career to prepare their minds to believe, much 
less anything to predispose their minds to originate, 
such a report. And then the idea of all of them, with 
none to dissent, reviving from their terror and despon- 
dency ; changing essentially their notion of the Mes- 
siah to suit the circumstances ; attributing their new 
interpretations of the Old Testament to an inspiration 
from Christ ; conceiving themselves, on this account, 
to be holding personal intercourse with him, then pro- 
ceeding to the further inference that his body had 
been awakened to life ! Add to this that on the 
strength of this faith, the offspring of a series of the 
veriest delusions, they went forth proclaiming the 
resurrection of Jesus, and this with a courage they 
had never before manifested or felt — went forth — 
these illiterate visionaries — to the spiritual conquest 



THE THEORY OF STRAUSS EXAMINED. 385 

of the world ! Notwithstanding the inventions of 
Strauss to account for it, the revolution in the feelings 
of the apostles so soon after they had " mourned and 
wept/' having thought that the kingdom would be 
restored to Israel, and hid themselves out of " fear of 
the Jews," remains, unless we suppose a great objec- 
tive transaction to produce the change, an unexplained 
marvel. For in their deep dejection of mind, there 
was nothing that could awaken a vision such as 
Strauss imagines. Misery does not beget enthusiasm. 
But if Ave admit for the moment that his conjec- 
tures on this point are well founded, he is immediately 
confronted by another difficulty, to surmount which he 
is obliged to set at defiance the testimony in the case. 
The most of the interviews with the risen Christ, 
which Strauss calls visions, took place in Jerusalem. 
There they met him — first, individuals, and then the 
eleven together, on the day but one after he had been 
laid in the tomb. They had the means of testing 
whether his body was, or was not, still in the embrace 
of death. They would certainly have made inquiry. 
They would certainly have gone to the tomb. Sen- 
sible of this difficulty, Strauss takes it upon him to 
transfer the scene of these interviews to Galilee. In 
Matthew, where the account bears all the marks of 
being an abbreviated summary, Jesus appears to 
" Mary Magdalene and the other Mary " on the first 
Sunday, and the disciples are directed to go into Gali- 
lee to meet him there. There Strauss places the scene 

25 



386 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

of the supposed visions. 1 But in taking this view he 
is obliged to contradict the more full narratives of the 
other evangelists, including John. They are con- 
firmed, in this particular, by the unquestioned testi- 
mony of Paul. For he states that the reappearance 
of Christ was on the third clay after his burial. The 
commemoration of Sunday in the apostolic age, of 
which the New Testament affords convincing evidence, 
proves the same thing. There is no plausible explana- 
tion of the constant affirmation of the disciples that the 
resurrection occurred on the third day, unless we sup- 
pose that Jerusalem was the place of his reappearance 
to them. The next declaration of Paul, that " He was 
seen of Cephas," falls in with the statement incident- 
ally made by Luke (Luke xxiv. 34), of the appearance 
of Christ " to Simon " on the Sunday of the resurrec- 
tion ; and it is natural to identify the interview with 
the twelve, which Paul mentions immediately after in 
the same verse, with the interview mentioned by Luke 
as taking place in the latter part of the same day (ver. 
36). So that the denial by Strauss that these inter- 
views, whether real or imaginary, took place in Jerusa- 
lem and soon after the burial of Christ, is in the teeth 
of unimpeachable testimony. 2 

1 Strauss throws aside, however, Matthew's account of the inter- 
view of Jesus with the two Marys. It is one of a. multitude of 
instances in which Strauss follows an evangelist just so far as, and 
no farther than, it suits his convenience. 

2 Baur, the Prince of the Tubingen critics, appears to give up the 
Straussian notion that the disciples forsook Jerusalem. " It proves," 



THE THEORY OF STRAUSS EXAMINED. 387 

But to remove the theatre of the so-called visions 
to Galilee does not suffice. It will not do to allow 
that the apostles began so soon to believe and to preach 
their dream as a reality for which they were ready to 
lay down their lives. Tor this inward change, time 
was required. There must be, in their Galilean seclu- 
sion, a silent preparation — a stitte Vorbereitung. To 
secure this advantage for his theory, Strauss does not 
hesitate to contradict the statement of Luke, in the 
Acts, that within a few weeks from the Master's death, 
on the day of Pentecost, they preached with great 
power and proclaimed his Resurrection. 1 Observe 
that the author of the Acts is not credited with a 
myth, but is charged with conscious deception. 

But all this violent criticism is really insufficient, 
because, apart from the testimony of the evangelists, 
the testimony of Paul makes it evident that it was not 
visions, but interviews and conferences, which the 
apostles had with the risen Christ. Strauss, indeed, 
tries to show that Paul's own sight of Jesus was only 

he says, " the great strength of their faith and a greatly strengthened 
confidence in the cause of Christ, that the disciples immediately after 
his death neither scattered outside of Jerusalem, nor assembled in a 
remoter place, hut in Jerusalem itself had their permanent centre." 
See Das Christenthum, etc. s. 41. He gives up the attempt "to 
penetrate by psychological analysis into the inward spiritual forces," 
by which the unbelief of the apostles at the death of Christ was 
supplanted by the faith in his resurrection : s. 40. In this particu- 
lar, then, Baur seems to repudiate the long-drawn hypothesis of 
Strauss. 

1 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 639. 



388 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

a vision, or a seeming vision, and then leaps to the 
inference that the other interviews of the disciples with 
Christ, after his death, were of a like nature. But 
Paul evidently regarded the appearance of Christ to 
him at his conversion, to which he here refers, as an 
objective, visible, actual manifestation. This late 
manifestation of the ascended Christ, he connects with 
the appearances of Christ to the other apostles before 
his ascension. There is no warrant, therefore, either 
for the assertion that Paul, in his own case, was refer- 
ring to a vision, or, even if he were, that the manifesta- 
tions of Christ to the other disciples were of this kind. 
If it were admitted that Paul's sight of Jesus was an 
illusive impression, a seeming vision, as Strauss pre- 
tends, yet that implies psychologically a state of feeling 
on his part, whether it were incredulity or incipient 
faith, which nothing but the proclamation of the resur- 
rection of Jesus by the apostles could have produced. 
And their supposed visions, at least, no prior fact of 
this kind can help explain. But this theory of visions 
is excluded by the fact that he was seen, as Paul 
declares, more than once by the whole company of the 
apostles simultaneously, and still more by the fact of 
his appearance to an assembly of more than five hun- 
dred disciples at once. The simultaneous imaginary 
vision of Christ by so large a number would be unac- 
countable. The nature of those meetings of the disci- 
ples with Christ, which Paul records with so profound 
a sense of the vital importance of them, feeling that 



DISPROVED BY THE BOOK OF ACTS. 389 

" if Christ be not risen, our faith is vain/' is set forth 
in the more circumstantial narratives of the evangelists. 
It was fact, not fancy, on which the preaching and the 
unconquerable faith of the apostles were founded. 

VII. The mythical theory is inconsistent with the 
book of Acts. 

We have just alluded to one point in this testi- 
mony. The book of Acts is the continuation of the 
third Gospel by the same author. It was written for 
the benefit of the same Theophilus to whom the Gos- 
pel was addressed (Acts i. 1). It is a work of a person 
who was the beloved companion of the Apostle Paul 
during a part of his missionary journeying. 1 The 
testimony of the Acts is of the highest value and im- 
portance. We here see the apostles, a few weeks after 
the death of Christ, proclaiming in Jerusalem his 
resurrection. We find them referring in their dis- 
courses to " the miracles, and wonders, and signs/' 
which Christ had performed " in the midst " of the 
people to whom they spoke (Acts ii. 22). We find 
that the apostles themselves were endowed with power 
to work miracles. 2 The Acts prove, thus, that the 
earlier miracles of Christ were believed and preached 
by the apostles. They furnish the most decisive proof 
of the supernatural events connected with the founding 
of Christianity. 

1 Col. iv. 14; Acts. xvi. 10-17, xx. 5-15, xxi. 1-18, xxxii. 1 seq. 
3 Besides passages in the Acts, see on this point Rom. xv. 19 ; 
2 Cor. xii. 12 : Hebrews ii. 4. 



390 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

Strauss, in his Life of Christ, prudently abstained 
from considering at any length the testimony of. the 
Acts. Other adherents of the Tubingen school, 
especially Baur and Zeller, have endeavored to supply 
this deficiency. But the mythical theory proves 
insufficient. It is found necessary to charge the 
author of the Acts with intentional fraud and false- 
hood. In defiance of the explicit, as well as incidental, 
evidence afforded by the Gospel, both works are re- 
manded to the early part of the second century, while 
the passages in the Acts in which the "we" occurs, 
are declared to have been thus left for the purpose of 
deceiving readers into the belief that the date of its 
composition was earlier. So the old infidelity is 
brought back again. Candid men will sooner put 
faith in the direct statements, made by the author of 
the third Gospel and of the Acts respecting himself, 
fully corroborated as they are by internal evidence of 
an incidental nature which could not have been man- 
ufactured, and confirmed, too, by the authority of the 
early Church, than accept the theory -that we owe 
these precious histories of Christ and the apostles to 
a cheat. 

VIII. The mythical theory is proved untenable by 
the fact that the supernatural elements in the life of 
Christ, are inseparably connected with circumstances 
and sayings which are plainly historical. 

The advocates of the mythical theory undertake to 



THE SUPERNATURAL BLENDED WITH THE NATURAL. 391 

dissect the Gospel histories, and to cast out everything 
supernatural. Out of the residuum they will construct 
the veritable life of Christ. Now if it be true that 
the natural and the supernatural, the historical and 
the (so-called) fabulous, are incapable of this divorce, 
but that both are parts of each other, so that if one be 
destroyed the other vanishes also, then the miracles 
must be allowed to stand. And such is the fact. 
These narratives will not suffer the decomposition that 
is attempted upon them. The two elements, the 
natural and the miraculous, will not admit of being 
thus torn apart. We have space for only a few proofs 
and illustrations of our proposition ; but these, it is 
hoped, are sufficient to show its truth. The first 
illustration we have to offer is the message of John the 
Baptist from his prison, to inquire of Jesus, " Art thou 
he that should come, or do we look for another ? " 1 
The two disciples of John witnessed the various mira- 
cles of healing performed by Christ. Jesus then said 
to them : " Go and shew John again these things 
which ye do hear and see : the blind receive their sight, 
and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the 
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have 
the gospel preached to them : and blessed is he who- 
soever shall not be offended in me." The messengers 
departed ; and Jesus proceeds to speak, with earnest 
emotion, to the people who are present, of the sacred 
character and the position of John. Now it is obvious 

1 Matt. xi. 2 seq. ; Luke vii. 18 seq. 



392 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

that if one part of this narrative is given up, the rest 
falls with it. There is no way of escaping the mira- 
culous, as the procedure of Strauss evinces, except by 
denying the whole — denying that John sent the mes- 
sage. But how irrational to suppose that the disciples 
of Christ w T ould have falsely attributed to John the 
doubt as to the Messiahship of Jesus, which occasioned 
the message. 1 Had Strauss no theory to maintain, he 
would be the last to assume a thing so improbable. 
We have, then, an example in which the miracles are an 
indissoluble part of a transaction undeniably historical. 
We proceed to another illustration. The evangel- 
ists record four instances of the miraculous healing of 
aggravated diseases on the Sabbath, each of which led 
to a conversation, inseparable from the incident that 
provoked it, and yet manifestly historical. 2 Let us 
briefly notice one of these instances — that of the man 
healed of the dropsy. On this occasion, in reference 
to the lawfulness of healing on the Sabbath-day, Christ 
put to the law r yers and Pharisees the question: 
" Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into 

1 That such was the motive of the message seems clear. See 
Meyer on Matthew, s. 244. The momentary uncertainty of John 
may have been owing to the circumstance that Jesus remained in 
retiracy and gave no signs of inaugurating any political change, from 
the expectation of which John was, perhaps, not wholly free. 

3 1. The case of the man with a withered hand, Matt. xii. 9 seq. 
(Luke vi. 6 seq. ; Mark iii. 1 seq.). 2. The man afflicted with dropsy, 
Luke xiv. 5 seq. 3. The woman bowed down with a chronic 
infirmity, Luke xiii. 10 seq. 4. The lame man at the pool of 
Bethesda, John v. 2 seq. 



THE SUPERNATURAL BLENDED WITH THE NATURAL. 393 

a pit, and will not straightway pull hirn out on the 
Sabbath-day ? " Strauss cannot bring himself to deny 
that Jesus proposed this question. The expression, 
both in doctrine and in form, is too characteristic of 
his method of teaching. Nor can he avoid admitting 
that it was spoken in connection with some act of 
Jesus in ministering to the diseased. He even con- 
cedes that the inquiry would be inappropriate unless 
the case were that of a person rescued from a great 
peril. After making various suggestions which fail to 
satisfy himself, Strauss is at length inclined to fall 
back upon the (so-called) natural exposition, which he 
is wont to handle, in general, so unmercifully. 1 If 
Jesus ministered among his disciples to bodily as well 
as spiritual infirmities, and had been giving remedies 
on the Sabbath, the question may have been put by 
way of self-defence. After following Strauss in the 
perpetual attack he makes, with logic and satire, upon 
the interpretations of Paulus, which, to be sure, are 
equally destitute of reason and taste, one cannot help 
being struck with surprise to find Trim resorting, in 
order to avoid the miracle, to one of that critic's 
favorite notions. Nothing could more clearly indicate 
the stress of the difficulty which is created by the 
evident verity of the New Testament report. 

The evangelists state that on numerous occasions, 
after working a miracle, Jesus directed that the fact 
should not be noised abroad. Not only would he be 

1 Leben Jem, B. II. s. 118, 119. 



394 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

concerned to avoid a premature conflict with the 
Jewish rulers, which might cut him off before his 
work was finished, but the prohibition was with 
reference to the eagerness of the people for a political 
Messiah, and in order that the number of his disciples 
might not be swelled by a multitude on whom no deep 
spiritual impression had been made ; who would, 
therefore, abandon their faith as soon as their carnal 
expectation should be balked. In some instances, the 
evangelists inform us, the injunction of Christ on 
this point was not complied with. That Christ should 
utter these prohibitions, was in itself a remarkable 
circumstance. It must fix itself, and did fix itself, in 
the recollection of his disciples. But if the miracles 
are dropped, what becomes of the prohibition to report 
them ? Strauss's talent for conjecture is here put to a 
severe test. He concludes that Christ, after he began 
his public ministry, at first regarding himself as only a 
forerunner like John, and only by degrees indulging 
the idea that he is himself the Messiah, was, so to 
speak, struck with fear at hearing that distinctly sug- 
gested from without which he hardly, in his own 
bosom, dared to conjecture, or had only shortly before 
come to believe ! That is, in homelier phrase, Christ 
wished nothing to be said on the subject till he had 
made up his own mind ! We need offer no comment 
on this theory, save to remind the reader that it does 
not touch the proof that this injunction most frequent- 
ly had reference to miracles. 






THE SUPERNATURAL BLENDED WITH THE NATURAL. 395 

Still another example of the truth that the natural 
and the supernatural are bound up together in the 
Gospel history, is afforded by the narrative of the 
Saviour's agony in Gethsemane. This disclosure of 
the sinking of his heart in the near prospect of death, 
and of the struggle through which he passed, is felt 
by the reader to be historical. Least of all would 
Strauss be expected to impeach the verity of it. His 
axiom is that the disciples were swayed by a desire to 
glorify their % master. He strangely attributes the 
circumstance that the disciples , are said to have fallen 
asleep, even here in the garden, and on the Mount of 
Transfiguration, while Christ was awake, to a secret 
desire to ascribe to him a certain superiority. How, 
then, could they have been prompted to falsely repre- 
sent him in a state of feeling, which, in the judgment 
of the world, however superficial that judgment may 
be, is less noble and w T orthy than the placid manner 
of a Socrates ? And yet Strauss, after long criticisms 
of the several Gospel narratives, pronounces the whole 
story of the agony of Jesus in the garden unhistori- 
cal ! l He has, moreover, a reason for this judgment. 
This agitation, whatever causes produced it, was con- 
ditioned by the knowledge that death ' was at hand. 
Now, as the plot was a secret one, to admit that Jesus 
was possessed of this knowledge would be tantamount 

1 "jener ganze Seelenkampf, weil auf unerweislicheii Vor- 

aussetsungen ruhend, aufgegeben -werden muss." Leben Jesu, B. II. 
b. 454. 



396 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

to the acknowledgment of his supernatural foresight. 
Strauss makes a laborious endeavor to show that none 
of the words of Jesus in the record of the institution 
of the Supper, imply an expectation of an immediate 
death. Thus, to avoid the supernatural, he strikes 
out of the history of Christ a passage which bears the 
most unmistakable stamp of being historical, and 
which his own fundamental postulate forbids him to 
reject ! 

Other proofs of a more than human knowledge on 
the part of Christ, are left upon the Gospel page. 
Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
overthrow of the Jewish state, and the forfeiture of its 
rank and privilege, as the seat of the worship of 
Jehovah. When the city stood in all its strength and 
splendor, he set the date of its downfall within the 
lifetime of the generation then on the stage. He fore- 
told, what is even more impressive to a thoughtful 
mind, the progress of the Christian cause to a universal 
triumph. In the parables of the mustard-seed and the 
leaven, he depicted the small beginnings and the 
future extent and power of the Christian religion. 
What a gaze was that which thus looked far clown the 
stream of time ! The unaided faculties of no man, in 
the situation of Jesus, could have thus forecast the 
drama of history. 

IX. The arbitrary and sophistical character of the 
criticism applied to the contents of the Gospels in 



SOPHISTRY OF STRAUSS. 397 

order to prove them untrustworthy, is conclusive 
against the mythical theory. 

The method of Strauss, as we have indicated 
before, is to overthrow the credibility of the Gospels, 
to the end that he may disprove their genuineness. 
He wishes, by an analysis of the testimony, to show 
that it cannot emanate from eyewitnesses or qualified 
contemporaries. Hence, the greater part of his book 
is taken up with the detailed examination of the Gos- 
pels, his aim being to show them to be destitute of 
historical authority. Strauss has forgotten the admo- 
nition of his countryman, Lessing : "if Livy, and 
Dionysius, and Polybius, and Tacitus, are so candidly 
and liberally treated that we do not stretch them upon 
the rack for a syllable, why should not Matthew, and 
Mark, and Luke, and John be treated as well ? " We 
characterize his criticism as generally unfair and 
sophistical. His manner is precisely that of a sharp 
advocate who sets himself to pick to pieces the testi- 
mony of a company of artless, but honest and compe- 
tent witnesses. Variations are magnified and harped 
upon ; whatever is stated by one and omitted by 
another is laid to some occult motive either in the one 
or the other, or in both • meanings are read into the 
record which never occurred to those who gave it ; and 
by other arts familiar to the advocate the impression 
is sought to be produced that the testimony is entitled 
to no credit. To fan suspicion is the prime object of 
Strauss. His method would destroy the credibility 



398 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

of all history. A parody, where the subject is an 
established, notorious historical fact, is the most 
effective method of refuting this criticism which rests 
on suspicion. If Whately's Life of Napoleon is not a 
valid refutation of Hume, inasmuch as no natural fact, 
however unexampled, can be put in the same category 
with a supernatural fact, this little work, nevertheless, 
well illustrates with what facility doubt may be cast 
upon sound and credible testimony. A clever parody 
upon Strauss was written in Germany, in the form 
of a Life of Luther. 1 The fact of " two birthplaces," 
for example, Bethlehem and Nazareth, which, at the 
outset, calls out the skepticism of Strauss, is put by 
the side of circumstances equally surprising in the case 
of Luther, whose parents, before he was born, had 
come from Mohra to Eisleben, and shortly after that 
event moved to Mansfeld. An able writer 2 has finely 
parodied the reasoning of Strauss through which he 
aims to impeach the credit of the evangelists, by try- 
ing the same method upon the ancient testimonies 
describing the assassination of Julius Caesar. And he 
proves that Caesar was never killed, by the same 
species of argument which Strauss employs to disprove 
the healing of the Centurion's son, or the transfigura- 

1 The title is as follows : " The Life of Luther, critically treated 
by Dr. Casuar Mexico, 2836." (Tubingen: 1839. The work was 
written by Wurm). A learned doctor, a thousand years hence, takes 
up the documents pertaining to the life of the Beformer, and, follow- 
ing strictly the method of Strauss, proves their untrustworthiness. 

2 Professor Norton, in his Internal Evidences of the Gospels. 



SOPHISTRY OF STRAUSS. 399 

tion. The one effort is just as successful as the other. 
The advocates of the mythical theory are very zealous 
in their repugnance to forced harmonizing, but forced 
^harmonizing is surely not less unworthy. What is 
the issue raised by Strauss ? It is not the question 
whether the Gospels are free from discrepances ; nor 
is it the question whether these narratives are inspired, 
or what kind and degree of inspiration belongs to 
them ; nor is it, in general, the question how far they 
may, or may not, partake of imperfections, from which 
competent and credible witnesses are not expected to 
be wholly exempt. But the essential truth of these 
narratives is the proposition which he impugns, and 
which, as we affirm, he utterly fails to overthrow. 

A great many causes besides error, either innocent 
or wilful, may introduce modifications into the form of 
a narrative. Of this all are aware who have pursued 
historical investigations, or are conversant with courts 
of law, or even observant of ordinary conversation 
Where brevity is aimed at, not only an omission, but 
some modification, of features of a narrative is often 
required. A peculiar interest in one element of a 
transaction may have the same effect, or may lead a 
reporter to change the order of circumstances. For 
the sake of making a transaction intelligible to a par- 
ticular person or class, some addition or subtraction 
may be necessary. At one time, an event may be 
stated in the dryest form ; at another, the same event 
may be pictured to the imagination. Two reports of 



400 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

the same transaction will often seem irreconcilable, but 
a new fact, coming to light, removes the contradiction. 
These are universally acknowledged principles. To 
hold living witnesses, or documents, to a mathematical 
accuracy of statement, or to an absolute completeness, 
on the penalty of being cast out of court, is disreputa- 
ble sophistry. 

These are grave charges against the critical method 
of Strauss, and we proceed to substantiate them by 
examples. On account of the demand made by the 
Pharisees that Jesus should give them " a sign/' or 
" a sign from heaven " * (Mark viii. 11, 12 ; Matt. xii. 
38 seq., xvi. 1 seq. ; Luke xi. 29 seq.), and the refusal 
of Jesus, Strauss affirms that Christ is here said to 
disclaim the working of miracles ! That is, the evan- 
gelist, in each case, so stultifies himself as to put on 
the same page with the record of miracles such a 
disavowal by Christ ! The simple truth is, that the 
" sign " was a peculiar manifestation in the sky, ex- 
pected to attend the advent of the Messiah, and which 
the Pharisees demanded in addition to all the other 
miracles. 2 Strauss says that Jesus, in forgiving the 
sins of the paralytic (Matt. ix. 2), recognized the 
Jewish doctrine of the allotment of evil in this life in 
exact proportion to the sin of the individual. 3 Yet 

1 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 4. 

2 See Neander on John yi. 30 {Leben Jesu); Meyer on Matt. 
xvi. 1. 

8 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 75 seq. 



SOPHISTRY OF STRAUSS.- 401 

this doctrine is plainly inconsistent with what Christ 
said on hearing of the Galileans " whose blood Pilate 
had mingled with their sacrifices ; " with the declara- 
tions in the Sermon on the Mount ; with the parable 
of the Rich Man and Lazarus, and with the statement 
in respect to the man born blind (John ix. 3). That 
an opposite doctrine is expressly taught in several of 
these passages, Strauss allows. It is only needful to 
suppose that in the particular case of the paralytic, his 
disease was directly occasioned by some sin, 1 or that 
Jesus saw that his conscience was troubled. 2 On how 
slender a foundation is a gross inconsistency charged 
upon the Great Teacher, or upon the historians who 
report him ! 

A specimen of numerous minor perversions of the 
sense of Scripture, is the remark of Strauss upon Matt. 
xxi. 7, where it is said that the disciples " brought 
the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, 
and they set him thereon." The last word, the 
translation of ijvdvco avrcov, Strauss refers to the 
animals, and strives to make the evangelist utter 
nonsense • 3 whereas the pronoun refers to the clothes : 4 
and even if the construction of Strauss were correct, 
he could only in fairness convict the evangelist of using 
a loose, colloquial expression. A similar instance of 
quibbling is the effort to foist upon John the error of 

1 So Meyer, ad loc. 4 So Meander and Meyer. 

3 So Bleek, Synopt. ErU s. 75. 3 Leben Jean, B. II. s. 274. 

26 



402 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSSv 

supposing that the High Priesthood was an annual 
office, because he alludes to an individual as " High 
Priest that year." * In the narrative of John, Peter is 
made to go first into the sepulchre, according to Strauss, 
out of respect to the vulgar notion concerning Peter ; 
and John must be made out to be the first to believe in 
the Resurrection. 2 But why not rather give to Peter 
the last distinction, or to John the first ? Is it possi- 
ble for criticism to be more arbitrary and groundless ? 
The relation, we are told, in which John is placed to 
Peter, in the fourth Gospel, is (t suspicious " 3 — 
verdacldicf is a favorite word with Strauss — but the 
position of John among the disciples is attested not 
only in the Acts but also by Paul, who styles him, 
Peter, and James, the pillars of the church at Jeru- 
salem. 4 Peter's confession of faith (Matt. xvi. 16) 
is construed into a proof that even the disciples had 
not before taken Jesus for the Messiah. But the 
fervor and depth of Peter's faith, the peculiar source 
of it, and perhaps, the glimpse of the higher nature of 
Jesus involved in it, together with the fact that it was 
uttered at the moment when others were deserting 
him, constitute its peculiarity and explain the marked 
commendation by Christ. To what reader of the 
passage did the notion of Strauss ever occur ? Who 
ever felt any difficulty of the sort ? Noteworthy is 
the timidly- asserted imputation of an admixture of 

1 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 361. ' Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 582. 

3 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 582. 4 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 497. 



SOPHISTRY OF STRAUSS. 403 

political elements in the plan of Jesus. 1 The abstain- 
ing from every effort to organize a political party, the 
explicit abjuring of a design to found a kingdom of 
this world, the acknowledgment of earthly magistrates, 
the essentially spiritual character of all the doctrines 
and precepts of Christ, are not denied. One would 
think that this were enough to acquit him of the 
slightest participation in the current Jewish notion of 
a political Messiah. All that Strauss brings to sup- 
port his charge from the words of Jesus, is the promise 
that the disciples should sit on twelve thrones, judging 
the twelve tribes of Israel. But this was to be at the 
Tialcyytvaola — in the future spiritual kingdom of the 
new heavens and the new earth. If this proves a 
temporal idea of the messianic kingdom, then the 
declaration of Paul that the saints shall judge the 
world, would prove that he held the same. The 
promise of Christ presents, in a tropical form, the 
reward of an ultimate participation in his own hea- 
venly glory. The insinuation of Strauss that the 
entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, riding on an ass, 
was a claim for political recognition, does not merit 
a reply. 

Under this head may be mentioned the neglect of 
Strauss to adhere to his own theory, in the frequent 
implication of a wilful deception on the part of the 
evangelists. This peculiarity of his criticism is worthy 
of marked attention. He is perpetually crossing the 

1 Leben Jesu, B. I. s. 518 seq. 



404 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS, 

line that separates the mythical from the mendacious. 
He thus proceeds frequently upon a theory which he 
professes to reject. A consciousness on the part of an 
historian that his statements are not conformed to the 
truth, makes him guilty of intentional falsehood. Then 
we have not myth, but lie. When Strauss says that 
the cases of the healing of the blind are much more 
numerous than the instances of the healing of lepers, 
because the former admit of a greater variety of cir- 
cumstances ; * when he states that the healing of the 
impotent man (John v. 1 seq.) was framed on the basis 
of narratives in the other Gospels, and made to take 
place on the Sabbath, because the words " take up thy 
bed and walk,'"' would furnish the most suitable text 
for the dispute, that follows, about the observance of 
the Sabbath ; 2 when he says that the prediction by 
Christ of the mode of his death was attributed to him 
from a desire to relieve the feeling which was ex- 
cited by the shameful character of the cross ; when 
he affirms that the foreknowledge of the treason of 
Judas was falsely ascribed to Jesus from a like motive ; 3 
when he says that the reference in John (John xviii. 
26) to a kinsman of Malchus is artificial and unhis- 
torical, being put in simply to fix Malchus immovably 
in the narrative ; 4 when he charges that the account 
of Pilate's washing of his hands, sprung from a desire 
of Christians to make the innocence of Christ seem 

' Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 64. 2 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 122. 

3 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 37]. 4 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 475. 



SOPHISTRY OF STRAUSS. 405 

clear and certain; ? and in numerous other places, some 
of which have been touched upon under former topics, 
Strauss virtually accuses the sacred writers and early 
disciples of conscious falsehood. He thus falls back 
upon a scheme of infidelity which the advocates of the 
mythical theory are fond of decrying as obsolete and 
as supplanted by their own more refined and charitable 
view. 

Of the unwarrantable attempt to fix a contradiction 
which shall impair their credit, upon the Gospel writers, 
where no contradiction really exists, there is a multi- 
tude of examples in Strauss. Thus, in comparing the 
healing of the paralytic in the record of Matthew 
(Matt. ix. 1 seq.,) with the narrative of the same event 
in Mark and Luke (Mark ii. 3 seq. ; Luke v. 18 seq.), 
he intimates that the two latter, in saying that a mul- 
titude came to Christ, start with an exaggeration of the 
simpler story of Matthew; although Matthew closes 
the account of the miracle with the words, " and when 
the multitude saw it, they marvelled." 2 It would seem 
no great inaccuracy in Luke and Mark to mention at 
the beginning what Matthew mentions at the end of 
the narrative. If one evangelist is more circumstantial 
than another, the additional matter is at once pro- 
nounced a later, fictitious addition. In the healing of 
the Centurion's son, because Matthew abbreviates the 
incident, omitting to mention the messages sent by the 

1 Leben Jem, B. II. s. 37. 

2 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 503. 



406 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

Centurion, these are at once set down as exaggerations 
of the original story. 1 As if a Avriter were bound, in 
all cases, to give details ! The main points — the faith 
of the Centurion and the healing from a distance — 
are clearly presented in Matthew ; and these are the 
essential points in the incident. On similar grounds 
the charge of exaggeration is brought against Mark 
and Luke (Mark v. 22 seq. ; Luke viii. 41 seq.), on 
account of the narrative of the cure of the daughter 
of Jairus. which Matthew (Matt. ix. 18 seq.) also gives 
in an abbreviated form. Such criticism upon secular 
history would be scouted. Strauss labors hard to make 
out a contradiction between certain statements in John 
concerning Judas (John xiii. 27-30), and the statement 
of the synoptical writers, that he had previously bar- 
gained with the priests ; but John says nothing incon- 
sistent with this. So Strauss would set the other 
evangelists in opposition to John, in reference to the 
statement of the latter, that Judas went out from the 
Supper, although the fact is that they say nothing 
about it one way or the other. A baseless charge of 
contradiction is founded on the statement of John that 
Christ bore his cross, and the statement of the othei 
evangelists that, on the way to the place of crucifixion, 
it was laid upon a man named Simon. 2 It is a poor 
cause which requires such perverse interpretation to 
prop it up. 

1 Lcben Jesu, B. II. s. 94 seq. 
8 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 509. 



FALLACIES OF STRAUSS. 40? 

Besides the artificial interpretation in the work of 
Strauss, his criticism is marked by a pervading fallacy. 
He reasons in a circle, rising now the authority of the 
Synoptics to disprove a statement in John, and now 
the authority of John to disprove a statement of the 
Synoptics. He is ever calling back this or that wit- 
ness whom he has himself driven out of court, and 
seeking to make out a point by the use of his testi- 
mony. 

Another fallacy runs through Strauss's work and 
vitiates much of his reasoning. He is continually 
ascribing features in the Gospel narratives to the desire 
or tendency of the disciples " to glorify their master." 
This tendency or desire is assumed without proof. Be- 
ing thus arbitrarily assumed, it is freely used to throw 
discredit on the narratives, while it is only on the 
foundation of the assumed falsehood of the narratives 
that the existence of such a desire or tendency is 
supposed ! 

X. The connecting of the various portions of 
the Gospel history with predictions and incidents 
which, it is alleged, served as a spur and model for 
the mythopceic faculty, is generally far-fetched and 
forced. 

If Strauss fails in his negative work of proving the 
falsity of the New Testament history, his failure to 
account for the construction of it is not less signal. 



408 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

If Christ was to heal the sick, some degree of resem- 
blance between his miracles and those wrought by the 
Old Testament prophets was to be expected. Yet 
Strauss seldom finds a resemblance near enough to 
render the assertion plausible that one event could have 
stimulated the fancy to the production of the other. 
In various cases, where there is a palpable difficulty in 
applying his theory, he takes refuge in the arbitrary, 
unsupported affirmation that features originally belong- 
ing to the Gospel narrative have been effaced and other 
features substituted for them. In regard to other mi- 
raculous occurrences described in the Gospels, he is 
unable to fasten decidedly on anything which could 
have put the imagination of the disciples upon framing 
them. But, of course, one test of his theory must be 
its applicability to the details of the New Testament 
history. 

The justice of the preceding remarks may be evinced 
by illustrations. Strauss makes the healing of the 
Centurion's son a myth, founded on the healing of 
Naaman by the prophet Elisha (2 Kings v. 8 seq.). 1 
But only in the one circumstance, that the prophet did 
not go out personally to meet Naaman, do the two 
miracles resemble each other ; and even here there is 
the marked difference, that in the case of Naaman a 
message promising a cure was sent to the diseased 
person himself. Moreover, the Centurion's son was a 
paralytic, while Naaman was cured of the more terrible 

1 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 3. 



ORIGINALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES. 409 

disease of leprosy ; but a leading canon of Strauss is 
that the messianic miracle will be an exaggerated copy 
of the Old Testament original. The healing of the 
withered hand (Matt. xii. 10 paral.) is said to be a 
fancy- copy of the healing of Jeroboam's hand (1 Kings 
xiii. 6). But the prominent point, which would not 
have been forgotten, in the latter narrative, is the 
character of the king thus healed. He stretched out 
his hand unrighteously, and could not draw it back. 
For the miracle of calming the sea, Strauss vainly 
searches for some Old Testament parallel. He is 
obliged to fall back on passages (Ps. cvi. 9 ; Nahum i. 
4 ; Ex. xiv. 16, 21), all of which relate to the drying 
up of the sea} Whence the extraordinary deviation in 
the Gospel narrative ? Strauss can think of no other 
solution than the fact that, being in a ship, Christ 
could not be well conceived of as making bare the bed 
of the sea ! But if there was this difficulty, could not 
the myth-makers have taken care to place him in a 
more convenient position ? The account of the mirac- 
ulous draught of fishes in John (c. xxi.), is pronounced 
a mythical combination of Luke v. 4 seq. and Matt, 
xiv. 22 seq. But Strauss is embarrassed by falling 
into conflict with two of his own axioms, one of which 
is that the later account has most of miracle, and that 
in John, especially, the miraculous is carried to the 
highest point : whereas, in the case before us, John 
represents Peter as swimming to the shore, while, in 

1 Leben Jesu, B. II. s. 166. 



410 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

the earlier narratives, he walked on the sea. The mir- 
acle of the transfiguration occasions Strauss great 
trouble. There is, indeed, the account of the shining 
of the face of Moses, although this was after his descent 
from the mountain, and of the voice out of a cloud \ but 
it happens that the chronology of this miracle of the 
transfiguration is so definitely fixed, the event is so 
connected with things before and after, that the his- 
torical character of the narrative cannot well be 
doubted. 1 For the miracle of the stater in the mouth 
of the fish, no antecedent prophecy or incident can be 
found. The same is true of the miracle of the healing 
of the ten lepers ; and Strauss resorts to the supposi- 
tion that a parable has here been mistaken for a fact. 
It is only by searching the Old Testament and the 
Rabbies, and combining one scrap here with another 
there, as the necessities of each case demand, that 
Strauss is able to make any practical application of 
his theory. The most that he shows, when he is 
most fortunate, is that a given narrative might possi- 
bly have grown out of this or that story or predic- 
tion. But, possibly not ; possibly the narrative is the 
record of a fact. A probability is what Strauss fails 
to make out. 

We leave here the special criticism contained in 
Strauss's work. But there remain to be presented 
several considerations of a more general character. 

1 See Bleek's Synopt. Er7cL, B. II. s. 56-67. 



CHARACTER OF THE FOUNDERS OF CHRISTIANITY. 411 

XL The mythical theory is inconsistent with a fair 
view of the temper and character of those immediately 
concerned in the founding of Christianity. 

Christ chose twelve disciples to be constantly with 
him, in order that an authentic impression of his own 
character and an authentic representation of his deeds 
and teaching, might go forth to the world. We find 
them, even in Paul, designated as "the Twelve,'' and a 
marked distinction is accorded to them in the early 
written Apocalypse. 1 The nature of their office, even 
if, contrary to all reason, the testimony of the Gospels 
were rejected, is made abundantly clear by those writ- 
ings of Paul which are acknowledged by the skeptical 
school to be genuine. Their function was to testify of 
Christ. Understanding their office, it was natural that, 
as Luke relates, they should feel called upon, after the 
defection of Judas, to fill up their original number by 
selecting a person who had " companied " with them 
through the public life of Christ, to be, as they said, 
" a witness with us of his resurrection." 2 A doubt 
of this last fact, in Paul's estimation, was equivalent 
to charging the apostles with being false ivitn esses. 3 

1 1 Cor. xv. 5 ; Eev. xxi. 14. The Revelation, it is allowed by the 
Tubingen school, was written about a. d. 70. 

2 Acts i. 21, 22. Passages adverting to this office of the apost- 
les are, as we should expect, numerous in the history, given in the 
Acts, of their preaching. Among passages elsewhere to the same 
effect are Luke i. 2, xxiv. 48 ; Jobn xv. 27 ; 1 Peter v. 1 ; 1 Cor. • 
xv. 15. 

3 1 Cor. xv. 15. 



412 M1THICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

The disciples were not enthusiasts, but sober-mind- 
ed witnesses, distinctly aware that they held this 
position. 

But the principal remark we have to make under 

this head strikes deeper. There is one quality which 

pervades the teaching and the religion of Christ, and 

that is holiness. This attribute is, also, a marked 

element of the Old Testament religion, in distinction 

from the religions of the Gentile world . The Sermon 

on the Mount touches the deepest chords of moral 

feeling. It speaks to the conscience. They who were 

drawn to Christ strongly enough to persist in following 

him, were brought face to face with moral obligations 

and with the infinite consequences depending on moral 

tempers. But holiness must affect the intellectual 

operations. It introduces the principle of truthfulness 

into the soul. It puts an end to the vagaries of fancy. 

It opens the eye to realities. Holiness becomes, in 

this way, the safeguard against self- delusion. Now, 

in the case of the Master himself, it is irrational to 

think that he whose holiness was free from the alloy of 

sin, could cherish a miserable, self- exalting illusion 

concerning himself. Could that holiness which rebuked 

the least admixture of sin in the motives and spirit of 

his dearest followers, be so mixed with the wildest 

enthusiasm? His disciples, not the twelve alone, but 

all who were willing to incur the peril and the odium 

of permanently attaching themselves to his cause, must 

have partaken of his spirit. The distinction of good 



CHARACTER OF THE FOUNDERS OF CHRISTIANITY. 413 

and evil, of truth and falsehood, was everything in 
their eyes. The comparison of the beauty -loving 
Greek with the truth-loving Hebrew, even when we 
are treating of an earlier age, involves an evident 
fallacy. Much more is the comparison of the Hebrew 
on whose ear not only the decalogue but the holy doc- 
trines and precepts of Christ had fallen, with the 
Greek of a primitive age, fitted only to mislead. In 
the New Testament writings we breathe an atmosphere 
of truth and holiness. We are in contact with men 
who feel the solemnity of existence. We are contin- 
ually impressed with the tremendous issues depending 
on the right use of the powers and faculties of the 
mind. We are among those who are solicitous, above 
all things, to be found faithful. Is it an error to 
expect from the holy a clearer discernment of truth ? 
Is it an error to suppose that holiness clarifies the 
vision ? that holiness will save men from confounding 
the dreams of fancy with fact ? If this be an error, 
then the nature of man was made to be an instrument 
of deception and delusion. Then we must deny that 
" if the eye be single, the whole body shall be full of 
light." 

Whoever looks into the Gospels will see that the 
pardon of sin is the great blessing promised and sought. 
It was they who craved this blessing who came to 
Christ, and remained believers, when those who had 
followed from a lower motive forsook him. But the 
sense of unworthiness, and enthusiasm, do not coexist. 



414 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

The feeling of guilt may engender unfounded fears, 
and run into superstition ; but nothing is more foreign 
from that play of the imagination which is implied in 
the theory we are opposing. That conviction of per- 
sonal unworthiness, growing out of self-judgment and 
moral thoughtfulness, which led men to Christ, is 
wholly averse from enthusiasm. The desire to see 
miracles was not the deepest feeling in those who 
adhered to Christ. Rather was it the desire of for- 
giveness and salvation. The miracles were a welcome 
proof that Christ "had power on earth to forgive sins ;" 
but the moral and spiritual benefit was uppermost in 
their esteem. They stood on a plane altogether above 
that occupied by a people in their intellectual childhood 
when the higher faculties are in abeyance, and the 
understanding is under the absolute sway of fancy and 
the craving for the marvellous. 

XII. Christ and Christianity receive no adequate 
explanation from the skeptical theory. 

This theory makes the character of Christ, as 
depicted in the New Testament, to be largely the 
product of the imagination of his disciples. The con- 
ception of that character, so excelling everything known 
before or since, combining all perfections in an original 
and unique, yet self-consistent, whole, the unapproached 
model of excellence for the ages that were to follow, 
must be accounted for. The features which the skep- 
tical theory must tear from the portraiture are essential. 



CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY NOT EXPLAINED. 415 

Take them away, and there is left only a blurred, 
mutilated image of one in whom good and evil, truth 
and pitiful error, were strangely mixed. If the Christ 
of the Gospels, says Julius Muller, be the creation 
of the disciples, if from their souls emanated this 
glorious and perfect conception, we must, then, revere 
them as the redeemers of the world ! 

But Christianity — this mighty and enduring move- 
ment in the world's history — how is that explained by 
the Straussian theory ? The ISTew Testament writings 
bear witness on every page to the depth and power 
of the movement. It was a moral and spiritual revo- 
lution, reaching down to the principles of thought and 
action, and leading thus, of necessity, to a transforma- 
tion of the entire life of men. It was literally a new 
creation in Christ Jesus. In the case of the Apostle 
Paul, for example, we see that there was not merely a 
belief in the messianic office of Jesus. But Paul has 
become a new man, in the sentiments, purposes, mo- 
tives, hopes, which constitute his inward being. A 
community sprung up, in whom old things had passed 
away and all things had become new. And how shall 
we explain the effect of this movement upon history 
for so many centuries ? It will not do to say that the 
Amazon, rolling its broad stream for thousands of 
miles, and spreading fertility along its banks, is all 
owing to a shower of rain one spring morning. The 
mind demands a cause bearing some just proportion to 
the effect. There are movements which affect only the 



416 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

surface of society. There are movements which pro- 
duce a wide commotion at the outset, but are soon 
heard of no more. But Christianity is no superficial, 
no temporary, no short-lived, movement. On the con- 
trary, its beginning is humble and noiseless. Even 
the most impressive natural phenomena, which are yet 
transitory, are no adequate symbol of the deep and 
permanent operation of Christianity. It is not like the 
tempest which, after a day or a week, is found to have 
spent its power. It is rather to be likened to the 
great, silent force of gravitation, exerting, age after 
age, its unexhausted energy. Now this movement, 
beyond what is true of almost every other in history, 
emanates from a single person. Whatever the pre- 
vious preparation, whatever the attendant circumstances 
were, Christianity proceeds from Christ. The force 
that must lie back of this prodigious movement, in- 
heres in him. He introduced and set in motion the 
energies that have wrought the whole effect. Let the 
reader try to form an estimate of this effect, in its 
length and breadth, as far as history has yet revealed 
it, and then turn to the solution of it offered by the 
skeptical theory. It was all produced, we are told, by 
a weak young man — an untaught Galilean Rabbi, who 
brought under his influence for one, or two, or three 
years, a few unlearned Jewish laborers ! We say " a 
weak young man," for only great weakness or great 
depravity can explain the monstrous delusion that is 
imputed to him. Now, is this an adequate solution ? 



THE FALSE PHILOSOPHY OP STRAUSS. 417 

In view of the power which has been exerted by 
Christianity to subvert rival and long established 
systems of belief, to command the homage of the 
highest intellect, to reform and mould society • in view 
also of the adaptation of Christianity to the human 
mind and heart, of its harmony with natural religion 
while providing for great wants which reason discovers 
but cannot supply, an eloquent writer has justly said : 
"it seems no more possible that the system of Chris- 
tianity should have been originated or sustained by 
man, than it does that the ocean should have been 
made by him." l 

XIII. The Straussian theory is connected with a 
false and demoralizing scheme of philosophy. 

At the conclusion of his work, Strauss describes 
the apparently ruthless and destructive character of 
his own criticism. He confesses that in appearance he 
is robbing humanity of its chief treasure. But all 
this he pretends to be able to restore in another form. 
Christianity is the popular expression of philosophical 
truth. This last he has no intention of sacrificing, but 
he will return to the believer all that he has wrested 
from him, though he will return it in a different form. 
Proceeding to inquire wherein lie the substance and 
power of Christianity, Strauss examines the various 
definitions given by the older Rationalism, and discards 



1 Evidences of Christianity, by President Hopkins, Section VII. 

27 



418 MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 

them. It is not as a collection of ethical precepts, it 
is not as a legal system, he holds, that Christianity has 
its characteristic quality and power over mankind. 
This distinguishing quality and power inhere in Chris- 
tianity as a religious system, and proceed from the 
oreat central doctrine of a union of God and man in 
Jesus Christ. This branch of his discussion is carried 
forward with a penetrating analysis. How, then, does 
he propose to modify Christianity? What is the 
philosophical truth underlying this popular conception 
of the unity of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ ? 
The real truth, answers Strauss, is, not that God and 
man are one, or God becomes man, in a single individ- 
ual, but rather in mankind collectively taken. That 
is to say, God is in each individual, in each the infinite 
becomes the finite, yet not fully or exclusively in any 
one ; but for the indwelling and full expression of the 
infinite, all the members of the race are required. In 
plainer language, there is no Divine Person, with a 
self-consciousness separate from the consciousness of 
men. There is no being higher than man, who can 
hear prayer. If a man prays, he prays to himself. 
God is man, and man is God. Jesus Christ is divine, 
so far and in the same sense as every other individual 
of the race is God. Men are the transitory products 
of the evolution of impersonal being. Freedom, sin, 
accountability, personal immortality, are merged and 
lost in an all engulfing necessity. Such is the apothe- 
osis of man and denial of God which constitute the 



FALSE PHILOSOPHY OF STRAUSS. 419 

philosophy of Pantheism, and which we are invited to 
accept as an equivalent for the living personal God and 
the incarnate Redeemer ! The demoralizing tendency 
of this necessitarian and atheistic philosophy is obvious 
to every serious mind. Strauss gives a specimen of the 
fruits of his philosophy by no means fitted to recommend 
it, when he elaborately justifies the continued preaching 
of the facts of Christianity, including the resurrection 
of Christ, by those who have espoused his interpreta- 
tion of them, and, therefore, disbelieve in their historical 
truth. We can scarcely suppose that Strauss is in 
earnest in pronouncing his speculative dogmas the sum 
and substance of Christian doctrine. He is rather 
paying a decorous outward respect to history, in which 
Christianity has performed so mighty a part, and to 
the Church whose faith he has assailed. But let it be 
observed that his work is an attack upon the truths of 
Natural as well as of Revealed Religion. That God is 
a Person, that man is free and accountable, that sin is 
the voluntary and guilty perversion of human nature, 
are denied not less than the miracles attending the 
establishment of Christianity. The postulates, on which 
the need of revelation is founded, being thus put 
aside, it is natural that Christianity itself, and the 
miracles which attest it, should receive no credence. 
A clear perception of the primary truths which God 
has written upon the heart, might have induced in 
Strauss an appreciation of the Christian system and 
its founder, such as led Thomas Arnold to feel that 



420 



MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS. 



miracles are but the natural accompaniments of Chris- 
tian revelation ; accompaniments, the absence of which 
would have been far more wonderful than their pres- 



ence. 



1 Arnold's Lectures on History, Lecture II. 



ESSAY VII. 

STEAUSS'S RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 1 

Strauss lias well-nigh outlived his own theory. 
His restatement is to a large extent a retraction. 
He still holds, indeed, that myths are found in con- 
siderable number in the Gospel histories. But as an 
exclusive, or even predominant, mode of explanation, 
he gives up his old hypothesis and adopts another 
which in form and spirit is wholly diverse from it. 
Yet, anxious to retain the name of myth, he contrives 
a new definition of the term. Thus he partially dis- 
guises his "change of base," and gives his new position 
a verbal identity with his old. 

This change is due to the influence of Baur. Baur 
has been ready to sanction the negative and destructive 
portion of the labors of Strauss. He gives Strauss 
the credit of showing that the several Gospel narratives 
are incapable of being reconciled with one another or 
depended upon as authentic histories. But for the 
positive construction of Strauss, Baur manifested less 
respect. He pointed out the logical impossibility of 
convicting the Synoptics of error by appealing to the 

1 Das Lebert Jem far das deutsclie Volk, &c. 1864. 



422 STRAUSs's RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 

authority of John, and, at the same time, John of 
error by appealing to the authority of the Synoptics. 
Strauss was in truth continually seeking to prove his 
points by witnesses whom he was himself continually 
impeaching. Baur said rightly that the relative au- 
thority of the several documents must first be deter- 
mined, and some firm standing-place be found, before 
anything could be proved or disproved by means of 
them. Then he also denied the general applicability 
of the mythical hypothesis to the contents of the Gos- 
pels. How could the fourth Gospel, which emanated 
from a single author who professes to be an eyewitness, 
be composed of myths, when myths are explained to 
be the involuntary creation of the enthusiastic fancy of 
the young Christian community? Baur supplanted 
the mythical theory by the so-called tendency -theory. 
A great portion of the narratives of miraculous events 
were declared to be the product of invention, and con- 
scious invention in the interest of one or another of 
the theological parties which, as it was held, divided 
the early Church. In this way, the whole Gospel of 
John, no small part of the Gospel of Luke and the 
Acts (which were both declared to be moulded and 
colored to subserve a theological motive), and a less 
but not inconsiderable part of the Gospels of Mark 
and Matthew, were declared to have originated. Mat- 
thew was pronounced by Baur to have more of the 
character of a faithful record than either of the other 
Gospels, and was taken> therefore, for a starting-point 



HIS CHANGE OF POSITION. 423 

and the chief authority in the criticism of the evangel- 
ical history. Now Strauss has adopted these doctrines 
of Baur, and to this extent has relinquished his own 
theory. At first, he apparently welcomed these new 
discoveries of the Tubingen master, or at any rate 
cheerfully adopted them. But in the present work, he 
chafes under the censures of Baur which have appeared 
in the posthumous writings of the latter, and gives 
vent to his dissatisfaction. Yet he does not withhold 
his assent from the conclusions of his more learned and 
sturdy compeer, and refashions his theory in accordance 
with them. 

Bow can wilfully invented narratives be styled 
myths ? Strauss meets the exigency by proposing that 
this term be used with more latitude. He will change 
the sense of it so as to include under the denomination 
of myths all narratives which spring out of a theologi- 
cal idea, even though they are the deliberate fabrica- 
tions of an individual. He argues that theologians 
need not abide by the meaning which classical scholars 
now give to the word. The motive of this innovation, 
and wide departure from his own previous definition, 
is obvious. Strauss will still be the father of "the 
mythical theory," even if he must baptize a new child, 
a very different sort of child, with the old name. 

But names are comparatively of little consequence. 
It is more interesting to remark that Strauss has aban- 
doned, as far as much of the Gospel history is concerned, 
his fundamental conception, and espoused a conception 



424 STRAUSs's RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 

which he had formerly repudiated. Of intentional 
falsification he professed to acquit the Gospel authori- 
ties. The originators of the narratives which they 
contain, were artless, enthusiastic devotees, carried 
away by a common enthusiasm and unwittingly mis- 
taking fiction for fact, the products of their own imagin- 
ation for veritable occurrences. Now they are made 
to be skilful theologians, bent upon pushing forward 
certain tenets or allaying some doctrinal strife, and not 
scrupling to resort to pious fraud to accomplish their 
end. This is a change of ground which no alteration 
of the significance of words will avail to cover up. The 
old infidelity is exhumed, with the difference that the 
mendacity imputed to the Gospel writers is attributed 
to another motive, and the attempt is made to disprove 
the genuineness of the canonical histories for the sake 
of disconnecting them from the apostles and thus 
avoiding the necessity of directly impugning their 
testimony, which would be an inconvenient, as well as 
ungracious, task. 

For this reason, that part of the new Life of 
Jesus for the German PeojAe which is most enti 
tied to examination, is the part relating to the 
origin of the New Testament historical documents. 
Most of what Strauss has to say on this topic has been 
directly or indirectly answered on preceding pages of 
this volume. He has set himself to supply the defect 
of his previous work, where, strange to say, the dis- 
cussion of the sources of knowledge concerning the 



HIS TREATMENT OE THE DOCUMENTS. 425 

life of Jesus is extremely brief and meagre. His 
present treatment of this important subject is in the 
spirit of a partisan, and not in that of a conscientious 
scholar. When he says that "in those times every- 
thing passed for genuine that was edifying," and that 
dogmatical grounds with the Fathers, among whom he 
expressly mentions Eusebius, determined everything, he 
makes a statement which every well-informed student 
knows to be false. Every scholar knows that Eusebius, 
Origen, and the earlier writers, as Clement of Alexan- 
dria, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, did not govern them- 
selves by any such canon as that which Strauss imputes 
to them. Every scholar knows that each of these Fa- 
thers depended on historical evidence and intelligently 
submitted to this test the writings which claimed to be 
apostolic, some of which they accepted and others they 
rejected. Strauss takes particular notice of the testi- 
mony of Papias, who says of Matthew that he " wrote 
the oracles (rcc loyta) in the Hebrew tongue, and 
every one interpreted (or translated) them as he could." 
This passage is construed into an implication that 
every one altered or recomposed the Hebrew Matthew 
to suit his own taste, and then the inference is pro- 
claimed that on the basis of an original Hebrew Gos- 
pel, containing we know not what, our Greek Matthew, 
the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, and various 
other works, were composed. There is not a syllable 
in Papias which remotely implies that any such liberty 
was taken with the work which he describes as the 



426 STRAUSs's RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 

original of Matthew. If one, writing among English- 
men and giving an account of Strauss's former Life of 
Jesus, says that it was written in German and every 
one translated it as he was able, who would understand 
him to imply that various persons had altered and 
essentially recomposed that work? Whether Papias 
be right or wrong in supposing that the Greek Gospel 
of Matthew which he and his contemporaries had in 
their hands was the translation of a Hebrew original, 
the meaning of his language is clear. He means that 
at first Greek readers had to use the Hebrew Gospel, 
as all men now have to use an untranslated book in 
a foreign tongue. They have to render it into their 
vernacular as well as they can. That Papias was not 
acquainted with our Mark is deduced from his state- 
ment that Mark did not set down his matter "in 
order " (iv vdgzi) ; a conclusion in itself most pre- 
carious, and entirely precluded when it is remembered 
that no mention of any other Gospel of Mark than 
that of the canon is to be found in any ancient writer. 
Strauss has the boldness to tell his readers that Luke 
does not pretend to have received his information from 
apostles, although in the proem of his Gospel he 
explicitly includes himself among those to whom the 
eyewitnesses had delivered their knowledge of the 
Master's life, and in the Acts impliedly places himself 
among the attendants of Paul. In reference to the 
passages in the Acts, from which we derive this fact, 
Strauss takes refuge in the untenable theory that they 



HIS TREATMENT OE THE DOCUMENTS. 427 

are a quotation. Justin is admitted to have made use 
of the first three Gospels. Respecting the Gospel of 
John, Strauss is more than usually sophistical. In the 
first edition of his former work, he had expressed 
doubts of its genuineness. Afterwards, in deference 
to the arguments of Ullmann and Neander, he retract- 
ed these doubts and declared his belief that John was 
the author. Still later, perceiving the fatal effect of 
this concession on his whole theory, he recalled it and 
went back to his old opinion. Among other obser- 
vations in the present book, Strauss brings forward 
the alleged silence of Papias concerning a Gospel by 
John as a proof that such a work was not known to 
him. In the first place, we know not that Papias was 
thus silent ; it is an uncertain inference from the cir- 
cumstance that Eusebius does not speak of any refer- 
ence by him to this Gospel. In the second place, he 
may not have had occasion to refer to or quote the 
Gospel of John, even though he used it. But, in the 
third place, he did, according to Eusebius, make use 
of the 1st Epistle of John, and the attempts of Strauss 
both to cast suspicion upon the correctness of Euse- 
bius in this particular and to call in question the evi- 
dent community of the Gospel and Epistle as to 
authorship, are alike futile. Strauss is desirous of 
showing that the Pseudo- Clementine Homilies in com- 
mon with Justin derived quotations, which are not 
found hi the first three Gospels, from the Gospel of 
the Hebrews. In one place (p. 60), he expressly 



428 STRAUSs's RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 

enumerates these four as the probable sources whence 
the writer of the Homilies drew his citations. Now 
Strauss knew that this writer had the Gospel of John 
in his hands and quoted from it ; for on a subsequent 
page (p. 69) Strauss expressly acknowledges the fact. 
Why not make this acknowledgment earlier ? Was it 
because the author of the Homilies is thus proved to 
have drawn the passage upon the necessity of being 
born again, from the Gospel of John, and not from any 
apocryphal Gospel, so that the pretence that the similar 
passage in Justin did not come from John is deprived 
of its frail support ? Other points in the remarks of 
Strauss on John hardly require to be noticed. He 
reiterates the objection that had Marcion been ac- 
quainted with the Gospel of John he would not have 
rejected it, although Tertullian explains that Marcion 
was misled by a false understanding of Gal. ii., and 
rejected the other apostles from their supposed hostility 
to Paul. Strauss also does not scruple to deny the 
correctness of Tertullian when he says that Valentine 
made use of the Gospel of John ; he parades the 
opposition of the insignificant Alogi, who also rejected 
the Apocalypse which Strauss himself considers genu- 
ine : and he borrows from Baur the far-fetched hypo- 
thesis that the author of the fourth Gospel shaped his 
narrative even to the extent of misdating the crucifixion 
of Christ, for the sake of suggesting that He is the 
true paschal lamb. The fourth Gospel saw the light, 
according to Strauss, ten or fifteen years after the 



HIS TREATMENT OF THE DOCUMENTS. 429 

controversy of Poly carp with Anicetus, or some time 
between a.d. 160 and 175 ! He makes the Clement- 
ine Homilies one or two decades later than the prin- 
cipal works of Justin, or in the neighborhood of a. d. 
160; so that, if we are to believe Strauss, the first 
certain reference to the Gospel is found in the Homi- 
lies. It is demonstrable that very shortly after this 
date the Gospel of John is found in use throughout 
the Christian Church, in every quarter of the Ro- 
man world, among the orthodox and among here- 
tics, as a revered and authoritative document, the un- 
doubted work of the Apostle, and handed clown from 
the generation contemporaneous with him. Irenaeus, 
Clement, Tertullian, are among the witnesses to these 
unquestionable facts. Moreover, Irenaeus was in the 
vigor of life at the time when Strauss pretends that 
the Gospel first appeared. And Polycarp, to whom 
Irenaeus in his early youth had listened and from 
whom he had heard personal recollections of John him- 
self, lived until a. d. 169 or until Irenaeus was not far 
from thirty years old. We say nothing of the satis- 
factory testimony of Justin and other earlier writers. 
The proposition of Strauss respecting the date of this 
Gospel must be maintained, if maintained at all, in 
reckless disregard of the evidence. 

Having turned his back on the only authentic 
sources of knowledge, how is Strauss to compose a Life 
of Christ ? Where is he to obtain the facts ? It is 
obvious that no resource remains to him but to draw 



430 STRAUSS S RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 

on his imagination. In truth, his work might better be 
entitled Conjectures concerning the Life of one Jesus by 
a Disbeliever in the Authenticity of the Gospels and the 
Existence of God. The aim is to frame a self-consistent 
account which shall exclude the supernatural. An 
evangelist is followed or discredited according to the 
exigencies of the moment. He is believed on one 
point and disbelieved on another point, when he could 
not be acquainted with one without knowing the 
other. A scrap torn from its connection in one Gos- 
pel is connected with a scrap torn in like manner 
from another, and the two, perhaps, are cemented by 
a wholly unproved conjecture. Strauss never hesi- 
tates to accept on the authority of the Gospels any 
fact that suits his need. There is nothing to satisfy 
a conscientious inquirer in this arbitrary proceeding. 
There is no firm footing anywhere. We are only 
provided with a mosaic of guess-work. There is no 
need of following Strauss into the details of his criti- 
cism. This has been sufficiently done in the examina- 
tion of his earlier work. 

In tone and spirit the second Life of Jesus, when 
compared with the first, gives evidence of a mournful 
degeneracy. In that earlier production there was an 
almost total lack of reverential, religious feeling. But 
in addition to this defect, the present work is marked 
by a bitter and scornful treatment of the fundamental 
verities of religion. In the dedication to a brother 
who, having been long an invalid, died before its pub- 



HIS TONE AND SPIRIT. 431 

lication, he expresses his pride and satisfaction that 
the sufferer had endured his pains without resort to 
any supernatural source of help and comfort, and 
that in moments when the hope of the continu- 
ance of life was extinguished, he had kept up 
his courage and composure, "never yielding to the 
temptation to deceive himself by resting on a world 
beyond." Stoicism is then the practical philosophy 
on which Strauss falls back in lieu of Christianity. 
The cold and barren spirit of endurance, where no 
design and no use are attributed to the sufferings 
which befall us, is the substitute for the faith and 
humility of the Christian. There is little clanger that 
this blind and hard philosophy will acquire a lasting 
popularity. Christianity once overcame it and sup- 
planted it ; Strauss may well apprehend that the same 
result may follow again. 

A rancorous tone, especially towards the Christian 
clergy, is an unpleasant feature of the present work. 
The author sees that Christianity remains in undimin- 
ished vigor, notwithstanding his supposed demolition 
of it nearly a generation ago. He is obviously soured 
by the disappointment, and he pours his resentment 
and chagrin upon the heads of the ministers, in a tone 
which, as he seems himself to anticipate, sounds 
demagogical. He despairs of overthrowing their in- 
fluence until faith in miracles shall be extirpated from 
the minds of the people. To this class he now ad- 
dresses himself, in the hope to have better success with 



432 STRAUSS S RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY. 

them than he had with the scholars and teachers. 
No very deep reflection might suggest to Strauss that 
this hold of the ministers upon the hearts of the 
people, which he thinks to be so deplorable, would be 
impossible, were there not in the human soul an ine- 
radicable sense of religion and faith in the supernat- 
ural, and he might thus be saved from cherishing too 
high expectations of the effect to be looked for from 
the influence of his books. 



ESSAY VIII. 

THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF EENAN. 1 

M. Renan, in the opening of his learned work on 
the History of the Semitic Languages, remarks upon 
the characteristic traits of the Semitic branch of the 
hnman family. He reckons among these traits an 
inbred attachment to monotheism. This observation 
illustrates at once the author's habit of incorrect, rash 
generalization, and the effect of his bias towards nat- 
uralism in warping his historical judgments. With 
the exception of the Mohammedan movement among a 
single people, and the religion of the Jews, all the 
members of the Semitic race were involved in polythe- 
istic idolatry, and that commonly of a gross kind. 
Among the Arabian descendants of Abraham, the 
monotheistic faith of their progenitor had probably 
never been utterly extinguished ; and as to the Jews, 
we know from their own records that for ages they 
were continually lapsing into the corrupt worship of 
their neighbors. Take out these people who trace 
their descent immediately to Abraham, and where is 
the monotheism of the Semitic race ? iN'ot among the 
Assyrians, the worshippers of Baal and Astarte and 

1 Vie de Jesus par Ernest Renan, membre de l'lnstitut. 1863. 
28 



434 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. 

other divinities, nor among the Babylonians, the devo- 
tees of a like idolatry, in whose foul ritual prostitution 
was a religious duty. Not among Syrians nor among 
Phoenicians or their colonists, the Carthaginians, by 
whom there was added to the lascivious cultus of the 
more eastern peoples the service of Moloch, the "hor- 
rid king," who was propitiated in the best days of 
Tyre and Carthage by casting children alive into the 
flames. In truth, the nation which, if we except the 
descendants of Abraham, has made the closest ap- 
proach to a monotheistic religion, namely, the Persian, 
belongs not to the Semitic, but to our own Indo- 
European stock. How, then, can it be contended 
that the Semitic nations are naturally, by a law of 
race, monotheistic ? The motive is obvious. The 
design is to suggest the inference that the pure con- 
ception of God which the Hebrew Scriptures present, 
was not supernaturally taught, but spontaneously 
generated. Evidences of a Pantheistic mode of 
thought are not unfrequently met with in the writings 
of Renan. " Two elements/* he remarks in one place, 
" explain the universe ; time and the tendency to 
progress." l 

Kenan's Life of Jesus clearly betrays the influence 
exerted by this naturalistic philosophy in determining 

1 See Kenan's article in the Revue des Deux Mondes (Oct. 1863) 
bearing the title : Les Sciences de la Nature et les Sciences His- 
toriques. See, also, Frothingham's Translations from Kenan, entitled 
Religious History and Criticism (New York, 1864), p. xxx. seq. 



THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 435 

the author's theory of the origin of Christianity. The 
comments we have to offer upon this production, 
which, partly in consequence of its attractive style, 
has had a wide circulation, will relate to four principal 
topics : the author's estimate of the documents which 
constitute the chief sources of knowledge ; his treat- 
ment of the narratives of miracles in the Gospels • his 
methods of interpretation ; and his conception of the 
character of the personage whom he undertakes to 
describe. 

1. In respect to the date and authorship of the 
four Gospels, Renan is, on the whole, much more 
reasonable than most of the German unbelievers. He 
says of the Gospels : " all, in my judgment, date back 
to the first century, and they are substantially (a _peu 
pres) by the authors to whom they are attributed." l 
This concession is important, but the value of it is 
lessened by other remarks which stand in connection 
with it. The precise opinions of the author, it is not 
always easy to ascertain ■ for, on this topic, he fre- 
quently advances an assertion only to retract or essen- 
tially modify it in the next sentence. He confidently 
affirms that the title, the Gospel according to Matthew, 
and the corresponding titles of the other Gospels, 
originally denoted, not authorship, but rather the 
source whence the traditions found in the several 
Gospels were drawn. 2 The Manichaean Eaustus is 
said by Augustine to have broached the same idea, 

1 Vie de Jesus, p. xxxvii. 2 Vie de Jesus, p. xvi. 



436 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. 

and, as far as we know, he was the first to do so. 
The phraseology of the titles admits of this hypothesis, 
but the early Fathers without exception interpret them 
as designating the authors, and such, in all probability, 
was their primitive significance. 1 Upon the authorship 
of the Gospel of Luke, Renan is fully satisfactory 
This Gospel, he says, is certainly written by the same 
person who wrote the Acts of the Apostles. It is " a 
regular composition, founded on authentic documents," 
and having "the most perfect unity." The author 
was a companion of St. Paul, was thus a man of the 
second apostolic generation, and wrote the Gospel 
" after the siege of Jerusalem, and soon after/' 2 In 
regard to the fourth Gospel, the position of Renan is 
somewhat vacillating. Yet he admits that without 
the light derived from this Gospel, important portions 
of the Life of Jesus could not be understood. His 
conclusion, after suggesting various conflicting hypo- 
theses, seems to be that the narrative parts of the 
Gospel are the work of John, and that the discourses 
emanate from his disciples, who modified and ampli- 
fied what they had heard. 3 Renan deserves credit for 
his emphatic contradiction of the Tubingen theory 
respecting the fourth Gospel, and for his decided 
affirmation, which is well supported by proofs, that 
the Gospel had the early date which is commonly 

1 Bleek, Einl in das X. T.< p. 87; De Wette, Einl in das X. T. 
(5 A.) p. 130. 

2 Vie de Jesus, pp. xvi.. xvii. 3 Vie de Jesus, p. xxiv. seq. 



THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 437 

assigned to it. It is plain that Ms misgivings in 
regard to the discourses in John are wholly subjective, 
and are incompatible with the external evidence for 
the genuineness of the Gospel, which he himself ad- 
duces. A great part of the discourses in John are 
linked inseparably with incidents in the narrative. If 
the discourses are given up, the narrative must share 
their fate. In his comments on Matthew and Mark, 
Renan has committed the gravest errors. He as- 
sumes that the discourses recorded in the first Gospel 
formed the basis of the work, to which the narrative 
matter was afterwards added ; and, likewise, that the 
Gospel of Mark has been enlarged since its first com- 
position. The collection of Discourses, he thinks, 
took up narrative matter from the primitive Gospel 
of Mark, and this Gospel in turn took up sayings of 
Christ from the Discourses. The theory is built on 
the foundation of the testimony of Papias, and this is 
done after Renan has expressly admitted that the 
descriptions of this Father " correspond very well to the 
general physiognomy " of the first two Gospels in their 
present form. 1 This admission is just, as we have 
shown in a previous Essay. If Papias did refer to an 
original collection of discourses, the basis of the first 
Gospel, which is very improbable, yet it has also been 
shown that he describes a state of things which lay in 
the past, and that he himself had in his hands the 
same Greek Matthew that is found in our Bibles. 
Renan has allowed himself to be misled in this par- 

1 Vie de Jesus, p. xis. 



438 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF REN AN.. 

ticular, in consequence of overlooking the aoristic form 
in which the statement of Papias appears. The only 
other ground on which Renan would infer this mutual 
indebtedness of the two Gospels to one another, is the 
well known frequent similarity in the phraseology 
employed. This proves, indeed, either that one of the 
two was partly founded on the other, or that both 
drew from a common source of information, either 
oral or written. But either of these hypotheses is 
more probable than the theory proposed by Renan. 
At the same time, had he confined himself to the 
statements cited above, he would leave untouched the 
substantial authenticity of the first two Gospels. He 
only finds a part of Matthew in Mark and a part of 
Mark in Matthew. But he finally gives to this bor- 
rowing system a far greater latitude. Founding his 
statement on the remark of a single individual, Papias, 
concerning himself, and exaggerating the purport of 
that remark, he affirms that in the early Church " little 
importance was attached " to the written Gospels. 
He proceeds to say that for a hundred and fifty years 
the evangelical texts possessed little authority ; that 
there was no scruple about inserting additions, com- 
bining them diversely, or completing some by others ; " 
that the early Christians " lent these little rolls to one 
another : each transcribed on the margin of his copy 
the sayings and the parables which he found else- 
where and which touched him." 1 Now these extra- 
ordinary propositions are not only without proof, but 

1 Vie de Jesvs, p. xxxii. 



THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 439 

can be demonstrated to be false. The habit of citing 
passages inexactly and ad sensum, which belongs to 
Justin and other writers of his time, proves nothing to 
the purpose ; for this is not peculiar to them, but be- 
longs equally to Fathers of the next age, and Justin's 
quotations from the Old Testament are marked by the 
same kind of inaccuracy. Does Renan mean his 
readers to believe that down to " the latter half of the 
second century," Christians individually altered their 
copies of the Gospels ad libitum by interpolations of 
the character described ? This appears to be his de- 
sign. Yet conjectures of this nature have been proved 
to be not merely uncertified, but inconsistent with 
known facts. 1 The number of copies of the received 
Gospels in the early part of the second century must 
have been great. These copies were early multiplied 
and widely scattered over the Roman Empire, where- 
ever Christians were found. Any essential variations 
in the text of either of the Gospels would inevitably 
have perpetuated themselves, and would appear in the 
later transcriptions. The essential agreement of all the 
manuscripts of the Gospels which are now extant, 
demonstrates that no changes of the character sup- 
posed by Renan could have taken place. Besides, 
he admits that Luke's Gospel is from a single pen, 
and was composed about the time of the capture of 
Jerusalem. 2 Why did not Luke's Gospel undergo 

1 See the argument of NortoD, Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. 
2 Vie de Jesus, p. xvii. 



440 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. 

similar transformations? What protected that from 
the lot which befell its companions ? But Renan 
involves himself in a labyrinth of inconsistencies on 
this subject, for Luke is declared to be later than 
Matthew and Mark, and " a compilation much more 
advanced." 1 And the resemblance in phraseology 
between the third Gospel and each of the first two 
presents the same problem as does the resemblance 
between the first and second. 

Such is Kenan's treatment of the question of the 
origin of the Gospels. Compared with the theories 
of the German skeptical critics, it deserves commenda- 
tion. The most serious defects of it are the view 
taken of the discourses in John, and the notion that 
the Gospels, at least the first two, were long subject 
to arbitrary changes in their contents ; a notion, 
however, which is incongruous with Renan's own 
previous concessions. 

2. As concerns the history recorded in the Gos- 
pels, and especially the accounts of miraculous events, 
Renan adopts what may be styled the legendary, in 
distinction from the mythical, theory. These accounts 
were rather the transfiguration of fact, than a pure 
creation of pious enthusiasm. Renan is decided in 
affirming that at least a great part of these accounts 
emanate from the apostles themselves, and that acts 
which passed for miraculous figured largely in the life 
of Jesus. On this point he cannot acquit the Master 

1 Vie de Jesus, p. xviii. 



THE NARRATIVES OE MIRACLES. 441 

at the cost of the disciples. He himself permitted the 
belief that he miraculously healed the sick and raised 
the dead. Renan is driven to this conclusion by his 
more sober view of the evangelical documents. What 
explanation of the testimony of the Gospels and of the 
extraordinary phenomena in the life of Christ, can be 
given ? Renan replies that the Gospels are legendary 
narratives, like the lives of some of the mediaeval 
saints ; and that the events in the life of Jesus which 
seemed miraculous, wore this character partly through 
the blind enthusiasm of the apostles, and partly 
through pious fraud in which they had an active, 
and their Master a consenting, agency. In defend- 
ing his thesis, Renan declares that Jesus had no idea 
of a natural order governed by laws, and was not 
conscious of the distinction between the natural and 
the supernatural, the normal and the miraculous. The 
attentive reader of the Gospels will not need to be 
assured that this proposition is devoid of truth. 1 When 
Jesus says that God makes the sun to rise and the 
rain to fall, did he mean or does he imagine that the 
shining of the sun, or a shower of rain, is a miracle ? 
Did he not know full well that the growth of the grass 
in the field is a totally different sort of event from the 
multiplying of the loaves, albeit the power of God is 
requisite for both? Did he not understand that his 
miraculous works belong in a different category from 
the ordinary labors of the physician ? After the cure 

1 See, on this point, J. Muller's Essay on Miracles, p. 33. K". 



442 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF REN AN. 

of a dumb demoniac, Matthew records that " the mul- 
titudes marvelled, saying, ' It was never so seen in 
Israel' ' The miracles of Christ excited among the 
witnesses the same kind of amazement which events 
of a like character would occasion now. 1 Equally 
unfortunate is Renan's comparison of the company 
of Christ with St. Francis and his followers. We 
have already, in the review of Strauss, pointed out the 
mistake of transferring to the apostolic church the 
characteristics of the mediaeval age. The disciples of 
St. Francis were full of the spirit of their master ; and 
enthusiasm that falls below absolute madness, can rise 
no higher than in the example of this monk. His 
asceticism stopped short of no austerities which the 
body could endure. His inward life, like his outward 
career, was a continual romance. His mystic fervor 
betrayed itself in his ordinary speech — in his apos- 
trophes to birds and beasts and even to inanimate 
things. " His life," says Milman, " might seem a 
religious trance. Incessantly active as was his life, it 
was a kind of paroxysmal activity, constantly collaps- 
ing into what might seem a kind of suspended anima- 
tion of the corporeal functions." As to the witnesses 
to the " wounds " of Christ on his person, one of 
them testifies to seeing the soul of St. Francis, after 
his death, in its flight through the air to heaven] 
And we are to believe that the author of the Sermon 
on the Mount and the Gospel Parables, together with 

1 See, for example, John ix. 32 ; Mark iv. 41. 



THE NARRATIVES OE MIRACLES. 443 

the chosen disciples who sat at his feet, were the vic- 
tims of the same sort of hallucination ! But hallucina- 
tion, as Renan feels and frankly allows, will not serve 
to explain these events in the Gospels. They were 
either miraculous, or there was fraud. He faces the 
dilemma and does not scruple to call in the aid of the 
fraus pia to account for them. The resurrection of 
Lazarus was a pretended resurrection, which the 
disciples contrived for popular effect, and in which 
Jesus reluctantly, but knowingly and wilfully, played 
his part ! It is a hateful supposition ; Renan himself, 
notwithstanding the sentimental apologic.3 which he 
offers for the conduct of the parties to whom he 
attributes a proceeding so low and deceitful, finds 
his own theory ungrateful. 1 Yet he adopts it because, 
unable to believe in a miracle, he is fairly cornered by 
the evidence, and knows no other escape. There is a 
condition of mind in which devotional sentiment has 
broken from its natural alliance with conscience, and 
the moral sense is lost in the haze of an artificial 
morality, when a man may think he can serve heaven 
by cheating his fellow-men even in the things of 
religion. Pious frauds are the spawn of this terrible 
delusion, that one may " lie for God." But who that 
is not blind to the marks of simple, faithful, uncom- 
promising rectitude, can entertain for a moment the 
suspicion that Jesus and his apostles were untruthful? 
that they sought to forward their cause by means of 

1 Vie de Jesus, pp. 265, 266. 



444 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OE RENAN. 

disgusting frauds ? The supposition is too irrational, 
and will find few, if any, to embrace it. 

Renan's work, regarded from a scientific point of 
view, has the effect of an argument for the Christian 
faith and for the verity of the Christian miracles. For 
the alternative to which we are brought by his discus- 
sion is that of believing in the miracles or charging 
Christ and his apostles with fraud. We have either 
truth or gross cheating. Such is the real alternative, 
and Renan has unintentionally done a service to the 
Christian Church by impaling unbelief upon this 
dilemma. 

3. The special criticism in Renan's work, if not 
sophistical like much of the criticism of Strauss, may 
be justly termed lawless. Starting with his unproved 
assumption that the canonical Gospels are legendary 
narratives, he seems to be governed in his beliefs and 
disbeliefs, in his acceptance and his rejection of their 
statements, by no fixed rules. This part of the narra- 
tive is accepted, and that thrown out, when frequently 
there is no assignable reason beyond the critic's arbi- 
trary will. But in styling Renan's critical procedure 
lawless, we had chiefly in mind his exegesis of the 
New Testament, and in particular his interpretations 
of the teaching of Christ. It is often true that while 
these interpretations are in some degree plausible, they 
are unsound and false. The effect of them, not unfre- 
quently, is to foist upon Christianity and its author 
doctrines which he never taught. The reader must 



INTERPRETATIONS BY RENAN. 



445 



permit us to vindicate this judgment by some illustra- 
tions. Witness the mode in which Renan seeks to 
support the false assertion that the Saviour enjoined 
poverty and celibacy. We may first observe, however, 
that the most which the Roman Catholic interpreters 
have pretended to find in the Gospels, is a recom- 
mendation of these monastic virtues. They are placed 
by the Roman Catholic theology among the Evangelica 
consilia, — as not being commanded, not essential to 
salvation, but as qualities of the higher type of Chris- 
tian excellence. The charge that the renunciation of 
property is required, as a condition of salvation, finds 
no support in the invitations of Christ addressed to 
the poor, in common with all who were in suffering, 
nor in the implication, which was the actual fact, that 
a spiritual susceptibility, not usually found in the more 
favored classes, belonged to them. Confronted by a 
fact like the discipleship of the wealthy Zaccheus, of 
whom no surrender of his property was required, 
Renan says that Christ made an exception in favor of 
rich men who were odious to the ruling classes ! As 
if Jesus could think that the sin of possessing wealth 
was washed out when the rich man happened to be 
unpopular ! Renan's perverse interpretation of the 
Saviour's rebukes of covetousness and an ungenerous 
temper towards the poor, he supports by appealing to 
the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. "After- 
wards," he says, " this was called the parable of the 
* wicked rich man.' But it is purely and simply the 



446 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OE RENAN. 

parable of the ' rich man.' " x As if the rich man were 
sent to a place of torment for being rich ! His desire, 
we must infer, to return to the earth " to testify " to 
his five brethren, was a wish to warn them not to 
possess property ! But what of the response of Abra- 
ham : "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, 
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from 
the dead ! " Even Renan will not contend that the 
Old Testament considers the possession of property a 
sin. He would be much more apt to dilate on the 
earthly character of the rewards promised there to 
the pious. Renan derives from Matt. xix. 10-13, a 
law of celibacy, instead of the lawfulness of celibacy 
when spontaneously practised, as in the case of Paul, 
for the sake of greater freedom in promoting the 
progress of the kingdom of God, — which is the real 
sense of the text. He is even disposed to follow 
Origen in the revolting absurdity of literally construing 
the phraseology (Matt. xix. 12) by which the Saviour 
describes the condition of celibacy. In the context of 
this very passage, the Saviour implicitly puts honor 
upon marriage. It was at a wedding that he first 
manifested forth his glory. The married state and 
the family are held sacred in the gospel. Yet Renan 
does not hesitate to found upon the injunction to for- 
sake father and mother, in obedience to the higher 
law of Christ, the charge that he required, as an indis- 
pensable condition of discipleship, the rapture of all 

1 Vie de Jesus, p. 175. 



INTERPRETATIONS BY RENAN. 447 

the ties of kindred ! These preposterous interpreta- 
tions are refuted by numerous places in the Gospels 
themselves and by the whole history of the primitive 
church. But these inconvenient passages it is easy 
for Renan to ignore or summarily cast out. Other 
examples of arbitrary and unfounded assertion in Re- 
nan's work are the statement that the Eucharist origin- 
ated long before the Last Supper • that Judas was led 
to betray Christ out of jealousy of the other disciples ; 
that John exhibits in his Gospel a feeling of rivalship 
towards Peter, — though Renan must have observed 
that Peter and John are frequently brought into con- 
junction in the Acts as well as in John's Gospel ; and 
Christ had not the least idea of a soul as separate from 
the body, — as if he did not speak of " both soul a?id 
body," and imply the same distinction in a hundred 
passages besides ; that Jesus, for the moment, thought 
of using force to prevent his arrest, — an interpretation 
which, if it came from anybody but a professed orient- 
alist, would be held to indicate a singular incapacity to 
understand the tropical method of instruction, which 
was habitual with Christ, and, in this case, was em- 
ployed to impress on the disciples the change in their 
situation, involving dangers to which they had not 
before been exposed. These examples of baseless 
criticism might be indefinitely multiplied. 

4. The impossibility of forming a consistent con- 
ception of Christ, when the supernatural is rejected, is 
strikingly shown by the abortive essay of Renan. The 



448 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF REN AN. 

most incongruous assertions are made concerning 
Christ. Now he is credited with sublime attributes 
of intellect and heart, declared to be the greatest of the 
sons of men, a character of colossal proportions, and 
now he is charged with a vanity that is flattered with 
the adulation of the simple people who followed him ; 
is accused of weakly yielding to the enthusiasm of his 
disciples, who were anxious that he should be reputed 
a miracle-worker, and is said to have given way to a 
gloomy resentment and to a morbid, half-insane relish 
for persecution and martyrdom. He is thought — this 
highest exemplar of mental and moral excellence, of 
wisdom and goodness, that has ever appeared or ever 
will appear on earth — to have not only cherished the 
wildest delusion concerning himself, his rank in the 
universe, and his power to revolutionize the Jewish 
nation, but he is also said to have declared against 
civil government and the family ties, and thus to have 
attempted a movement, most impracticable and mis- 
chievous, for the virtual disorganization and overthrow 
of society ! Renan describes under the name of Jesus 
an impossible being. Although incompatible actions 
and traits are imputed to him without necessity, even 
upon the naturalistic theory, yet the prime, the insur- 
mountable obstacle in the way of the task which Re- 
nan has undertaken, lies in the impossibility, so long- 
as the supernatural elements of the narrative are re- 
jected, of attributing to Jesus the excellence which 
undeniably belongs to him. 



ESSAY IX. j 

THE CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS OF 
THEODORE PARKER. 

Theodore Parker will be known, not as the 
inventor, hut as a bold expositor and propagator, of 
new opinions. His Theology was a not very well 
digested compound of doctrines drawn from various 
and conflicting schools of Naturalism. Notwithstand- 
ing his robust intellect and his wide knowledge of 
books, his discriminating admirers will hardly claim 
that he was either an accurate scholar, or a consistent 
thinker. 

In a review of the second edition of the Life 
of Jesus by Strauss, which Parker published in April, 
1840, 1 he takes a tone of opposition to that writer, 
implies his own belief in the resurrection of Christ 
and in other miracles, and welcomes the partial ad- 
mission of the genuineness of John which Strauss 
then made, but afterwards recalled. In May of the 
next following year, Parker delivered the noted Ser- 
mon, in which he avowed his disbelief in the Gospel 
miracles. Afterwards, in his Discourses of Religion 
and elsewhere, he adopts the Tiibingen theories 

1 Christian Examiner, Volume XXVIII. 
29 



450 THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. 

concerning the Gospels and the canon — but scarcely 
undertakes to support them by regular argument. 
His critical remarks, unconnected as they are, and 
resting on no independent researches, are possessed 
of little scientific value. Of the canonical Gospels, he 
says, " we must reject the fourth as of scarcely any 
historical value. It appears to be written more than 
a hundred years after the birth of Jesus, by an 
unknown author, who had a controversial and dogmatic 
purpose in view, not writing to report facts as they 
were ; so he invents actions and doctrines to suit his 
aim, and ascribes them to Jesus with no authority for 
so doing." 1 " The Gospel ascribed to John is of small 
historical value, if of any at all." 2 Of Matthew, he 
says that " the fragmentary character of this old Gos- 
pel " is clear ; 3 and of the Synoptics generally, that 
we know not " when they were written, by whom, or 
with what documentary materials of history. 5 ' 4 These 
are the familiar propositions of Baur and his followers, 
and have been sufficiently examined on preceding 
pages of this volume. From his premises Parker 
deduces the proper inference that the Gospels are 
untrustworthy and full of errors. 5 

If this be so, what are we to believe respecting 
Jesus ? The answers to this question are indecisive 
and self-contradictory. Now we are told that the 

1 Discourses of Religion, p. 236. 2 Ibid., p. 258. 

3 Ibid., p. 237. 4 Ibid., p. 236. 

6 Ibid., (e. g.) pp, 231, 339. 






PARKER ON MIRACLES. 451 

Gospel writers " would describe the main features of 
his life, and set down the great principles of his doc- 
trine, and his most memorable sayings, such as were 
poured out in the highest moments of inspiration." 
In the same breath it is affirmed that no stress can be 
laid on particular events recorded in the narratives ; 
that they are a mass of truth and error, collected about 
a few central facts. 1 In his practical use of the docu- 
ments, Parker is not less arbitrary than his Tubingen 
compeers. He believes where it suits him to believe, 
and elsewhere the authority of the evangelists goes for 
nothing. For example, though he holds that the Gos- 
pel writers have egregiously erred in reporting the 
sayings of Jesus, and, among other things, in the 
application of general predictions, wishes, or hopes to 
specific times or events, 2 he still confidently appeals to 
some of these predictions, to prove the fallibility of 
Jesus. 

There is one entire class of events which form no 
small part of the Gospel histories, which Parker pro- 
nounces wholly fictitious. It need not be said that 
we allude to the miracles. He agrees with Strauss 
in styling the narratives of supernatural events 
" mythical stories ; " 3 and like Strauss he deviates 
from the mythical theory to make room for the diverse 
hypothesis of Baur. But why should Parker deny the 
truth of this portion of the Gospels ? Unlike Baur 

1 Discourses of Religion, p. 233, and Note. 
2 Ibid., p. 233. 3 Ibid., p. 234. 



452 THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. 

and Strauss, lie professes to be a Theist, and to be- 
lieve that miracles are possible. Why should he not 
believe them actual ? Absence of competent testimony 
cannot be the reason, for it is plain that disbelief in 
the miracles is the real cause, and not the consequence, 
of his impeachment of the testimony. To render a 
satisfactory answer to this question, attention must be 
directed to Parker's theological principles. It will 
appear that the denial of miracles is part and parcel 
of the denial of Revelation, and that the latter springs 
from a failure to perceive the ground of the need of 
Revelation. 

The fundamental point of Parker's theology is his 
doctrine of the absolute religion. With his eloquent 
paragraphs on the universality of the religious sentiment, 
and on the indestructible power which religion exerts 
over mankind, we cordially sympathize. They consti- 
tute a fine refutation of the Positivist assumption that 
religion is an excrescence to be lopped off in the pro- 
gress of the race from childhood to maturity. But 
our concern now is with the doctrine about the abso- 
lute religion. Absolute religion, or religion in its 
pure, complete form, is sometimes described by Parker, 
in accordance with the Kantian definition, as obe- 
dience to the moral law regarded as the will of God, 1 
and sometimes as love to man from love to God, or 
simply as love to God and man. Probably he would 
modify Kant's definition by introducing the element 

1 Discourses of Religion, p. 43. 



THE ABSOLUTE RELIGION. 453 

of love. Religion, then, is declared to be expressed 
in the law enjoining love to God and love to man. 
The wonder is that Parker should seem to suppose 
that this definition is in any sense original or peculiar. 
There is hardly a symbol, catechism, or systematic 
treatise on theology, from any branch of the church, 
whether Latin, Lutheran, Reformed, Socinian, or 
Quaker, which does not set forth the same truth. The 
greater wonder is that Parker should suppose that 
Christianity, as generally understood, is superseded by 
this idea of religion. Christianity is a method of 
redemption from evil, and evil is the control acquired 
in the hearts of men by the principle antagonistic to 
this law. That is to say, Christianity is the means of 
salvation. To hold up the idea of the absolute religion 
in the midst of a world under the sway of ungodliness 
and selfishness, can only be compared to the conduct 
of one who, when the plague is raging, runs about 
with an excellent definition of health. Parker is 
naturally gratified at seeing the law in its simple form ; 
but Paul's reply is : " the law tcor/ceth wrath ; " " we 
Jcnoio that the law is spiritual," we subscribe to all 
your laudation of it, " but I am carnal, sold under 
sin," " for what I would, that do I not, but what I 
hate, that I do ; " " who shall deliver me ? " 

Thus, Parker's rejection of revealed religion (which 
is only the disclosure of the divine redemptive system) 
is logically and practically connected with his rejection 
of the Christian doctrine of sin. If the Bible doctrine 



454 THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. 

respecting the present moral condition of mankind is 
false, the falsity of the Gospel is the proper corollary. 
But Parker's shallow apprehension of the great fact 
of the bondage of mankind to evil, which heathen 
religions as well as Christianity acknowledge, and to 
which not Paul alone, but earnest and discerning men 
in every age, have borne painful witness, is the fatal 
defect in his theology. He could see the outbreakings 
of sin in oppressive institutions and the selfish con- 
duct of individuals, and these particular expressions of 
sin he denounced without stint. But he attained to 
no deep and large apprehension of the principle of sin, 
which pertains exclusively to no individual and no 
class of men. 

The consequences of this fatal ignorance are easily 
traced. The attribute of holiness was almost stricken 
from the conception of the divine character. Justice 
was hardly distinguished from the personal passions 
of hate and revenge. Hence, the Bible representation 
of the character of God excited the strongest feeling 
of repugnance. This narrow view prevented Parker 
from attaining to any just appreciation of the Old 
Testament. He stuck in the phraseology, and was 
never weary of scoffing at the idea of a "jealous" or 
an " angry " God. But the New Testament, in its 
doctrine of the desert and penalty of sin, was scarcely 
less offensive. How Jesus, whom he professed to 
consider the highest embodiment of love and excel- 
lence, could be all this at the same time that he 



PANTHEISM IN HIS THEOLOGY. 455 

cherished these obnoxious ideas and feelings, is a prob- 
lem which is left unsolved. 

Though he was professedly a Theist, and though 
a volume of his prayers has appeared in print, Parker's 
theology is strongly tinctured with Pantheistic modes 
of thought. In the first place, his expressions in 
regard to the nature and origin of sin are more Pan- 
theistic than Pauline. He speaks of sin as the trip- 
ping of a child who is learning to walk; that is, a 
necessary, and, if his illustration holds, an inculpable, 
stage in human progress. The idea that sin is a phase 
in the development of the soul and of the race, and 
is eliminated by the operation of a physical law, is 
only consonant with a feeble impression of the guilt 
of sin, and properly belongs in a system of Pantheism. 
The confounding of natural law with ethical law, and 
constitutional imperfection with moral transgression, is 
a mode of thought which Christianity regards with 
intense antipathy. Iniquity and innocent infirmity 
belong in totally different categories. The Pantheistic 
doctrine virtually calls evil good, and good evil, puts 
darkness for light and light for darkness, puts bitter 
for sweet and sweet for bitter. The free and responsi- 
ble nature of man is really denied, and admitted only 
in words. If sin is not a voluntary apostasy from 
obedience to a law which commands but constrains 
not, the foundation of the Christian system is gone, 
and the superstructure must of course suffer a like 
fate. In the second place, Parker discusses the ques- 



456 THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. 

tion of the history of religions in a Pantheistic spirit. 
He adopts the Positivist speculation, tracing Mono- 
theism to Polytheism, and Polytheism back to Peti- 
chism. 1 That is, the most degraded type of religion 
was first. This doctrine is against history, which 
gives no instance of a nation spontaneously exchanging 
Polytheism for Monotheism. Polytheism may gene- 
rate skepticism, as in Greece, but does not lift itself to 
a better faith. Heathenism generally brutifles and 
degrades humanity. But the hypothesis of such an 
upward progress is consistent with the general theory 
that the mutations of religion obey a natural law of 
progress, and that religion is one effect of civiliza- 
tion, so that in the infancy of mankind heathenism, 
and the lower forms of it, necessarily prevailed. In 
the third place, when Parker comes to define his con- 
ception of God, he differs little from Spinoza. There 
is no definite ascription to God, of the distinctive ele- 
ments of personality, self-consciousness and self-deter- 
mination. " We talk of a personal God. If thereby 
we deny that He has the limitations of unconscious 
matter, no wrong is done." " God must contain in 
Himself, potentially, the ground of consciousness, of 
personality — yes, of unconsciousness and imperson- 
ality." " All mental processes like those of men are 
separated from the idea of Him." 2 His language 
implies not creation, but emanation' — a development 

1 Discourses of Religion, Chapter Y. 

2 Ibid., pp. 152, 153, 158. 



VACILLATION BETWEEN THEISM AND PANTHEISM. 457 

of the world out of a prior potential existence. Par- 
ker's doctrine appears to corne to this, that God is the 
infinite essence of which matter and spirit are the 
divine manifestations. He does not express himself 
with philosophical precision or strict consistency. But 
this appears to be the prevailing representation at 
the bottom of his remarks. It is the proposition of 
Spinoza. In fact, from Spinoza and Schleiermacher 
the principal ideas of Parker on this subject appear 
to have been learned. 

It is true that in other places in the writings of 
Parker, expressions hardly consistent with that repre- 
sentation, and decidedly theistic in their purport, may 
be met with. But this is just the characteristic of his 
position — an uneasy equilibrium between the two 
systems. Had Parker been thorough in his theism, 
he would have attained to profounder views on the 
subject of sin, and might have advanced to the proper 
corollary, the need of supernatural redemption. Had 
he been thoroughly logical in his Pantheism, other 
elements in his system, especially his practical dealing 
with the evils of the day, would have been sensibly 
modified. As it was, he walked in neither path with 
firmness and consistency; and therefore, though his 
popular influence was large, he will leave no durable 
mark on scientific theology. 

It would not be difficult to show that generous 
ideas of philanthropy have no stable foundation 
except in the Christian^ doctrine respecting man and 



458 THE OPINIONS OE THEODORE PARKER. 

human sin. Theories of the origin of heathenism and 
of the origin of evil, such as are broached by Parker, 
have a close affinity with the philosophy which treats 
portions of our race as semi-human, or at least hope- 
lessly degraded. Slavery and other sorts of barbarity 
seek in this philosophy their theoretical support. But 
let the doctrine of Paul that paganism is the fruit 
of a fall and degeneracy be held ; let his solemn 
arraignment of the human family in the opening of 
the Epistle to the Romans be heartily subscribed, and 
the connected principle that " God has made of one 
blood all men " will not be given up. Only in the 
pure atmosphere of Christian theism, can the law of 
human brotherhood take root and flourish. 






ESSAY X. 

IN EXAMINATION OF BAUK AND STRAUSS ON THE 
CONVERSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 1 

When we speak of the conversion of the Apostle 
Paul, we mean not only the adoption by him of new 
religious tenets which he had before denied, but like- 
wise the moral revolution in his tempers of feeling and 
principles of action. We refer to that great transfor- 
mation which rendered him " a new creature." He 
was convinced that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth 
was in truth the Messiah; but his conversion also 
induced and included a new moral spirit and an all- 
absorbing consecration to the cause which he had 
previously hated. This entire change Naturalism at- 
tributes exclusively to the operation of physical and 
psychological laws. 

The theory propounded by Baur in his Life of the 
Apostle Paid is reiterated with some variations in the 
last Life of Jesus by Strauss. 2 A zealot for the Phar- 

1 Lord Lyttletons little work on the Conversion of St. Paul is a 
sound argument. It is largely taken up, however, with proving that 
Paul was no impostor ; and the remarks to show that he was not an 
enthusiast, though judicious, are not adapted to meet the more recent 
skeptical theories. 

a Leben Jesufur d. deutsche VolJc, p. 33. 



460 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 

isaic type of religion, Paul was irritated and alarmed 
at the progress of a sect which held the ceremonies of 
the law to be of subordinate consequence, and pre- 
tended that their crucified Master was the promised 
King of Israel. His vehement spirit impelled him to 
active measures of persecution. Yet the nobler feel- 
ings of his nature could not fail to be touched by the 
demeanor of the dying Stephen ; nor could he wholly 
suppress the misgivings which the unfaltering tes- 
timony of the disciples to the resurrection of Jesus 
stirred up in his breast. To him, a Pharisee, it was 
no impossible event ; and if it were true, the difficulty 
occasioned by the ignominious death of Christ was 
removed or alleviated. In this divided state of feeling, 
when the will was maintaining a half-conscious struggle 
with the better impulses which rose against his present 
determination and his life-long convictions, and his 
soul was agitated with contending forces, he seemed to 
himself to behold in a vision Jesus rebuking him for 
the conduct for which he had begun to rebuke himself. 
Perhaps he was struck by lightning while on an errand 
of persecution ; and this circumstance, together with 
the physical effects that followed, may have been the 
immediate occasion of the imaginary vision. Strauss 
argues that an infirmity of the nervous system proba- 
bly belonged to Paul and partly accounts for remark- 
able experiences which he attributed to a supernatural 
cause. Baur, especially in his earlier discussion of the 
subject, dilates upon the tendency of the mind to pass 



THEORY OF STRAUSS AND BAUR. 461 

from one extreme to the opposite. The more ardently 
and thoroughly a man enters into an erroneous system, 
the more likely he is, we are told, to be awakened to 
the falsehood of his position. In proportion to the 
intensity of his zeal is the force of the self-induced 
reaction. 

To the credit of Baur it must be added that after- 
wards he appears to have become dissatisfied with his 
own solution. In the last edition which he prepared, 
of his History of Christianity in the First Three Cen- 
turies, he says that " neither psychological nor dialecti- 
cal analysis can explore the mystery of the act in 
which God revealed to him his Son." Pie even says 
that in the conversion of Paul, " in his sudden trans- 
formation from the most vehement adversary into the 
most resolute herald of Christianity, we can see 
nothing short of a miracle (wunder)." 1 And the same 
word he soon after applies again to the same event. 
If we are not at liberty to suppose that Baur admits 
in this case a strictly supernatural agency — an admis- 
sion which would fundamentally alter his whole theo- 
logical system — yet it is something to find him willing 
to use the obnoxious word, and to acknowledge the 
impossibility of accounting for the conversion of Paul. 
Baur explains that, however mysterious the transaction 
was, the turning-point in the great change which took 
place in the mind of Paul was a new view of the death 
of Jesus. He came to understand that his death 

: Baur, das Christenthum, etc. (2 A.) p. 45. 



462 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 

might be the transition to a more exalted life. With 
this new view, his prejudice against a crucified Messiah 
vanished, but with it his Jewish particularism disap- 
peared also ; since the Christ in the heavens was 
raised above the narrow Jewish conception of the 
Messiah, and their exclusive, carnal theory of his office 
and relation to men fell to the ground. What portion 
of truth is contained in these interesting suggestions 
we shall inquire in the course of the remarks which 
follow. 

1. It is important to notice the testimony of the 
authorities and to compare the statements of Strauss 
and Baur with that. The conversion of Paul is three 
times circumstantially related in the book of Acts, once 
by Luke himself (c. ix.), and twice by the Apostle — 
the first time, in his address to his countrymen at 
Jerusalem (c. xxii.), and again in his speech before 
Agrippa (c. xxvi.) The variations in these three nar- 
ratives relate to slight matters of detail, and are unim- 
portant. Yet Strauss, as might be expected, expends 
upon them his trivial criticism. Paul was journeying 
towards Damascus for the purpose of seizing Christian 
men or women whom he might find there, and dragging 
them to Jerusalem. Suddenly a bright and dazzling 
light shone down upon him and his attendants. The 
whole company were filled with consternation. But 
the " trembling and astonished " Paul distinctly heard 
the words that were addressed to him. Then followed 
his blindness and his conjunction with Ananias at 



THE TESTIMONY. 463 

Damascus, each having been supernaturally guided to 
the other. The skeptical critics do not scruple to 
avail themselves of any circumstances from Luke which 
fit into their scheme. Thus, the presence of Paul at 
the murder of Stephen is a fact of which Luke is the 
only witness. Strauss even supposes an effect on Paul 
from disputations with Christians, while the only evi- 
dence he offers that such disputation took place is 
Acts ix. 29, where Paul's disputing with the Jews after 
his conversion is alone mentioned. In the Acts we 
have the testimony of one who had been for a time 
associated with Paul, and who had resorted for his 
information (see Luke i. 5) to the authentic sources. 
But we cannot here enter into the question of the 
credibility of Luke, which, as we believe, has been 
fully vindicated in a previous Essay. Happily we have 
the testimony of the Apostle himself, in his undoubted 
Epistles, to several of the main facts, if not to the 
special circumstances, of his conversion. He tells us 
that prior to that event he had "beyond measure per- 
secuted the church of God and wasted it" (Gal. i. 13). 
He says that he deserves not to be called an apostle, 
because he had " persecuted the church of God" (1 
Cor. xv. 9). He had made himself famous among the 
churches of Juclea as a persecutor (Gal. i. 22, 23). 
He had outrun the Jews about him in his fanatical 
zeal (Gal. i. 14.) He was unquestionably a furious 
enemy of the disciples and their cause. A Pharisee, 
he had entered with all his heart into the measures of 



464 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 

his party for exterminating the infant Church. More- 
over, it is undeniable from his own statements in the 

j 
Epistles that his conversion was sudden. It was the 

result, as he declares, of a revelation of Jesus Christ to 
him. And when he connects with his claim to be 
an apostle the declaration that he too had seen Christ 
(1 Cor. ix. 1), it is rendered in a high degree probable 
that his conversion w r as one of the occasions when this 
occurred. The most of what has just been said, the 
skeptical critics allow. They generally concede that 
Paul's conversion resulted from a vision in which he 
supposed himself to behold Christ. They would only 
resolve this vision into a mere subjective impression, 
the product of intense mental excitement. 

2. The skeptical theory assumes without evidence 
and against the evidence, that the mind of Paul before 
his conversion was deeply exercised with misgivings 
as to the rectitude of his course. The naturalistic 
solution requires the supposition that an inward tumult 
and conflict of this sort prevailed in his soul. This 
hypothesis not only lacks support, but is positively ex- 
cluded by the proofs. It is founded on the words of 
Christ, in Acts xxvi. 14 — the same passage in Acts ix. 
5 is interpolated — " it is hard for thee to kick against 
the pricks." The " pricks " are the goad with which 
the ploughman from behind urged forward the oxen. 
The phrase was a proverbial one, and is thus correctly 
explained by Dr. Hackett : " the meaning is, that his 
opposition to the cause and will of Christ must be un- 



HIS PREVIOUS FEELING. 465 

availing ; the continuance of it would only bring 
injury and ruin on himself/' 1 The illustrative pas- 
sages from Wetstein establish this interpretation. 
There is no implication that the Apostle was struggling 
against conscientious impulses : the opposite rather is 
indicated. He was engaged in a resolute, pertinacious, 
but ineffectual endeavor to stop the progress of the 
Christian cause. When we turn to Paul's own words 
we find satisfactory evidence that he was disturbed by 
no misgivings, but was wholly absorbed in the work 
of persecution. He had been, he says, a blasphemer 
and persecutor, but found mercy because he " did it 
ignorantly, in unbelief." 2 He says again : "I verily 
thought wi th myself that I ought to do many things 
contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." 3 He was 
sincere and perfectly confident that he was striking at 
a heresy. When he "made havoc of the church/' 
entering into private houses and hurrying to prison 
women as well as men, and when he left Jerusalem to 
hunt down the fugitive disciples in other cities, he had 
no doubt that he was performing an acceptable service 
to God. The idea that he rushed into extreme meas- 
ures of cruelty to drown the rebuke of conscience is 
pure fancy. Everything shows that it was the depth 
and ardor of his conviction that stimulated him to out- 
do his Pharisaic brethren in his exertions to crush 

1 Hackett, Commentary on the Acts, p. 402. See, also, Meyer and 
De Wette, on Acts xxvi. 14. 

2 1 Tim. i. 13. 3 Acts xxvi. 9. 

30 



466 



THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 



the new heresy. The foundation of the skeptical solu- 
tion of the problem of his conversion is therefore taken 
away. 

3. Baur's conjectural explanation of the change in 
the religious ideas of Paul is essentially defective. 
The earlier notion that great zeal in a bad cause natu- 
rally leads the subject of it to reverse his course, will 
obtain little applause. We do not find that Torque- 
mada was converted to Protestantism and to gentleness 
by the excess of his own cruelty in managing the 
Spanish inquisition. Nor will it avail to answer that 
Paul was of a milder and more generous nature. As 
Neander has remarked, there were among those who 
beheld the burning of Huss many good men who saw 
in the spectacle nothing but the just punishment of 
a contumacious and mischievous heretic. There is no 
ground for supposing that the death of Stephen made 
a different impression on Paul. 

Baur is rio;ht in holding that the conversion of 
Paul from narrow Pharisaism to the broadest Chris- 
tianity, however that conversion may have begun, in- 
volved a process. It was a rational change of princi- 
ples and views. He attained to a new conception of 
the nature of religion, as not consisting in the punctil- 
ious observance of ceremonies, nor ultimately in any 
works of legal obedience, but in faith which worketh 
by love. Unquestionably he saw, as Baur affirms, a 
meaning and use in the death of the Messiah, which 
rendered that event no longer repugnant but grateful 



DEFECT OE BAUR's THEORY. 467 

to his feelings. The proximate cause of this change, 
however, was the awakening of a sense of sin and a 
conviction of the utter inadequacy, from a legal point 
of view, of that obedience which he had been able to 
render. His feeling respecting the death of Christ 
was the correlate of his consciousness of sin and of the 
helpless condition into which sin had brought him. 
But all this peculiar experience, as far as we are able 
to ascertain, was posterior to that revelation of Jesus 
as the Messiah, which first broke up his feeling of self- 
satisfaction. Reflection upon the death of Jesus, as 
long as Paul was imprisoned in his Pharisaic conception 
of the Messiah, could only serve to confirm him in 
his opposition to the Christian cause. That Jesus had 
suffered death was of itself sufficient proof that his 
pretensions were false and his followers heretics and 
apostates. Not until Paul was convinced of the reality 
of the resurrection of Jesus, could he put faith in his 
claims and become reconciled to the fact of his death. 
This is allowed by Strauss ; and now the question is, 
how Paul became convinced that Jesus had really risen 
from the grave. Strauss conjectures that Paul was 
overcome by the testimony of the disciples, the event 
to which they bore witness being one which he, as a 
Pharisee, must admit to be possible. But Strauss 
ignores the essential circumstance that the whole career 
of Jesus, terminating as it did in the crucifixion, con- 
stituted in the judgment of Paul an overwhelming 
presumption against the probability of his resurrection 



468 



THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 



and against the credibility of his disciples' testimony. 
Moreover, it is clear from the Apostle's own language 
that it was not the weight of human testimony, in the 
first instance, that caused him to believe, but a super- 
natural revelation, or something which he supposed to 
be this. There is not a shadow of proof that he had 
begun to consider with himself whether the testimony 
of the disciples might not be true. On the contrary, 
he thoroughly disbelieved it, and, inspired with the 
fanatical hatred of an inquisitor, he was eager to exter- 
minate the new sect. The naturalistic criticism in 
vain casts about for some explanation of this sudden, 
total revolution of opinion which was attended by a 
revolution equally signal in character and conduct. 

4. There is no proof that the revelation of Christ, 
which caused the conversion of Paul, was a vision ; and 
if it were, there is no explanation of it save on the 
supposition of its reality. 

In a vision, through a powerful impression made 
on the mind there is a real or supposed direct percep- 
tion of objects not presented to the senses. Were the 
event which changed the career of Paul shown to be a 
vision, not a step would be taken towards proving it 
an illusion. For the skeptical criticism will not be 
permitted to assume that the human mind cannot be 
supernaturally acted upon, and that the visions recorded 
in the Bible are the product of an excitement having 
its origin exclusively in the mind itself. It has been 
shown already that this criticism has wholly failed to 



HIS SIGHT OF CHRIST ACTUAL. 469 

point out any psychological preparation in Paul for 
such a deceitful exercise of imagination. A vision, 
even though it be unreal, cannot spring from nothing. 
Little is gained, therefore, were we to concede that 
Paul's first conviction of the resurrection of Jesus was 
through a vision. 

But even this concession there is no warrant for 
making. It is true that Paul at various times in his 
life, after his conversion, had visions, as he himself 
relates. But it is also true that he makes no mention 
of his conversion as one of these, since the vision to 
which he refers in 2 Cor. xii. 1-4 occurred fourteen 
years prior to the time of his writing, whereas his con- 
version was at least twenty years before the date of 
the Epistle. Nor is there reason to think that Paul 
could not distinguish between the phenomena of a 
vision and an affection of the outward senses. 1 We 
find this distinction explicitly made by Luke in Acts 
xii. 9, where it is represented that Peter who had fol- 
lowed the angel out of the prison was in such pertur- 
bation of mind that he "wist not that it was true 
which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a 
vision (ogcc/ucc)." That which was " true " (dXrj&Sg), 
or actual, is expressly discriminated from the vision, or 
subjective impression. Peter knew not for the instant 
whether his liberation had been super naturally repre- 
sented to his mind with the vividness of reality, or 

1 For valuable remarks on this topic, see Beyschlag's Article, Die, 
Bekehrung dies Apostels Paulus, Studien u. Kritiken, 1864. 2. 



470 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 

whether he had been actually set free. There is no 
warrant for supposing that the strong understanding of 
Paul did not make the same distinction between vision 
and external fact. And when he says that he, as well 
as the other apostles, had seen Jesus, and connects his 
apostleship with this circumstance (1 Cor. ix.), we 
properly conclude that he refers to something besides 
a purely spiritual, inward perception, or such a percep- 
tion as a vision could vouchsafe. Peter had seen Jesus 
in his bodily presence, and Paul puts himself in this 
regard on a level with Peter. 1 And the objective real* 
ity of this transaction on the road to Damascus can be 
disproved only by discrediting the thrice-repeated nar- 
rative in the Acts. 

1 Beyschlag shows that the argument of Paul for the resurrection 
of believers (1 Cor. xv.), which is founded on the resurrection of 
Jesus, implies a perception of Christ in his bodily presence. A sense 
of the presence of Christ, however vivid it might be, which did 
not exhibit him in the tody, could not constitute a basis for this 
argument. 



ESSAY XI. 

THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE CHEISTIAN 
MIEACLES. 

There are those who find it hard to believe in a 
miracle, because the word is associated in their minds 
with the notion of a capricious act, or of a makeshift 
to meet an unexpected exigency. They conceive of a 
miracle not as an event planned and fitting into an 
established order, but as done in obedience to a sud- 
den prompting, as a kind of desperate expedient to 
prevent the consequences of a previous neglect or want 
of forecast. Such an act, they properly feel, cannot be 
attributed to God. Anxious to remove the prejudice 
just described, another class of writers set up defini- 
tions of a miracle which destroy the distinction be- 
tween a miracle and an event occurring in the course 
of Nature. In flying from one error, they plunge into 
another lying opposite. The mistake in the conception 
which they would correct can be exposed without 
confounding a miracle with a natural event, or strip- 
ping the former of the distinguishing attributes that 
constitute its value as a proof of divine revelation. A 
miracle belongs in a wholly different category from 
natural events ; yet it forms no element of discord, is 



472 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

due to no mistake in the structure of the world, which 
requires to be remedied, and it conspires with natural 
events to produce harmony in the whole system. 

In this Essay we shall make the attempt to define 
the nature, and determine the appropriate and ap- 
pointed use, of miracles. Objections and errors of 
recent origin call for a fresh discussion of this impor- 
tant subject. And if the path of our inquiry leads 
in part through a field not unfamiliar ; yet more pre- 
cise conceptions of accepted truth are sometimes of 
hardly less value than neAV discoveries. Tor the sake 
of greater clearness, the remarks that follow will be 
arranged under a series of special topics. 

WHAT IS THE IDEA OF A MIRACLE? 

In answering this question we reject at the outset 
what the Germans call the relative nature of the mira- 
cle, or the notion that the miraculous quality of such 
an event is merely relative to human feeling and ap- 
prehension. This definition does not go beyond the 
etymology of the term. But an event which excites 
wonder in an extraordinary degree is not thereby con- 
stituted a miracle. The authority of Augustine has 
often been pleaded in favor of this faulty definition. 
He says that a miracle is not contrary to Nature, but 
only to that Nature which is known to us. The or- 
dinary operations of Nature, he says, were they un- 
familiar, would excite not less amazement, and are in 
reality not less wonderful, than miracles. But in 



THE IDEA OP A MIRACLE. 473 

Augustine's view, which results from his anti-mani- 
chaean philosophy, all the operations of Nature are 
immediate exertions of the Divine will. In this re- 
spect, therefore, he can place miracles in the same cate- 
gory with the every-day operations of Nature, while he 
holds, at the same time, that the miracle, when re- 
garded from another point of view, is an altogether 
exceptional event. 1 Spinoza, identifying God with 
Nature, is consistent in denying that any distinctive 
characteristic of an objective kind belongs to a miracle. 
This term, he says, has respect only to the opinions 
entertained by men, and signifies no more than this, 
that we, or at all events they who narrate the occurrence 
in question, are unable to explain it by the analogy of 
any other event familiar to experience. On Spinoza's 
scheme, a miracle in the proper sense is a complete 
absurdity. 2 Schleiermacher, never wholly able to es- 



1 Augustine, De Civ. De\ xxi. 8, 2. Omnia quippe portenta con- 
tra Naturam dicimus esse : sed non sunt. Quomodo est enim contra 
Naturam, quod Dei fit voluntate, cum voluntas tanti utique Condito- 
ris conditse rei cujusque natura est? The will of God — the voluntas 
of the Creator — is Nature. 

3 Spinoza devotes c. vi. of the Tract. Theolog-Polit. to the subject 
of miracles ; and further considers the subject in his Letters — Epist. 
xxi. and xxiii. He says (in the chapter above referred to) : " Ex his 
— sequitur, nomen miraculi non nisi respective ad hominum opiniones 
posse intelligi, et nihil aliud significare, quam opus, cujus causam 
naturalem exemplo alterius rei solitse explicare non possumus, vel 
saltern ipse non potest, qui miraculum scribit aut narrat." With 
Spinoza leges naturales are one and the same with Dei natura. See 
the context of the passage. 



474 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

cape from the atmosphere of Pantheism, comes no 
nearer the true idea, when he says that any event, 
even the most natural, may be styled a miracle, pro- 
vided the religious view of its origin is spontaneously 
awakened in the mind, with a forgetfulness of the 
proximate natural causes. 1 The relative notion of the 

1 Wunder ist nur der religiose Name fur Begebenheit : jede, auch 
die allernattirlichste, sobald sie sich dazu eignet, dass die religiose 
Ansicht von ihr die herrscliende sein kann, ist ein Wunder. Mir ist 
alles Wunder, &c. Eeden (6 A.) s. 106. See, also, N. 16, s. 145. 
Schleiermacher's views are more fully set forth in his System of 
Theology — the Glaulenslelire — § 14 Zusatz, § 34, 2, 3, and § 47. 
Though not rejecting the New Testament miracles, as historical oc- 
currences, he still professes his agreement with those who hold "dass 
Gott die Wunder auf eine uns unbegreifliche Art in der Natur selbst 
vorbereitet gehabt." B. I. s. 240. But his reasoning to prove that a 
divine act must be performed through the system of Nature and 
be provided for in that system, is unsound and of a Pantheistic 
tendency. 

Schleiermacher has again discussed the subject of miracles in his 
Lectures upon the Life of Jesus, published lately for the first time. 
He has taken, however, no new positions. In his endeavor to refer 
the miracles of Jesus to energies belonging to Nature, he is perplexed 
by the control which Christ exercised over inanimate existence, as in 
stilling the tempest, multiplying the loaves of bread, and raising the 
dead. (See p. 223.) Such events, he perceives, can be attributed to no 
mysterious natural energy, which is supposed to have enabled him to 
produce extraordinary effects — for example, in healing — in contact 
with living men. Yet the miracles of the class mentioned above are 
historically as well attested as any of the rest. This fact Schleier- 
macher is constrained to allow, and hence finds it impossible to extri- 
cate himself from the difficulty into which he is thrown, and which 
is due to the false assumption as to the relative nature of the miracle, 
with which he sets out. 

A view homogeneous with that of Schleiermacher has been at- 



THE IDEA OF A MIRACLE. 475 

miracle fails to separate it objectively and really from a 
natural event — an event occurring by natural law. 
Neither the degree of astonishment with which events 
are regarded, nor the question whether they can be 
referred to a previously ascertained law, nor, again, 
the question whether they are attributed spontaneously 
to the power of God, forms the denning characteristic 
of a miraculous occurrence. An attentive observation 
of the common phenomena of Nature, as Augustine 
and after him Luther and many others have forcibly 
pointed out, may well kindle wonder, and in a reli- 

tributed to Stanley on the foundation of passages in his work on the 
Old Testament History, and is styled the providential theory. (See 
Frances Power Cobbe, Broken Lights, p. 31). Events recorded in 
Scripture are said to be neither strictly natural nor strictly supernat- 
ural, but specially providential. They are such as to suggest impress- 
ively the agency of God, and are related to each other as parts of a 
great, consistent plan. This theory seems not to differ essentially 
from that of Schleiermacher. Whether it be justly ascribed to Stan- 
ley's interpretation of the Old Testament History, we do not assume 
to determine. 

That the miracles of Christ could not have been performed by 
any power embosomed in Nature — as, for example, by an energy 
belonging naturally to preeminent human virtue — would seem to be 
an obvious truth. Yet a recent writer (Furness, Veil partly Lifted, 
p. 216) takes this position, even respecting the resurrection of Jesus. 
Aside from the tremendous difficulty of supposing such anomalous 
events, as the miracles recorded in the Bible, to be due to any power 
latent in human nature, we are cut off from that supposition by the 
testimony of Christ himself, and are obliged to refer them to a super- 
natural author. The broaching of such a theory indicates a desire 
in some, which amounts to a determination, to get rid of the agency 
of a living, personal God. 



476 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

gious mind will carry up the thoughts to God. But 
such phenomena are not, on this account, to be 
deemed miraculous. 1 

In defining a miracle we pledge ourselves to no 
particular theory concerning the constitution of Nature. 
If the new doctrine of the persistency of force — the 
correlation of forces, Mr. Grote calls it — should be 
established ; if all the phenomena of matter should be 
found to be due to varieties of motion — to be varied 
manifestations of one essence ; our present discussion 
would not be sensibly affected. If occasionalism be 
adopted as the true philosophy ; if it be maintained 
that the operations of Nature proceed immediately 
from the volitions of God, the efficiency of second 
causes being denied, or even that the phenomena of 
Nature are indistinguishable from these volitions, what 
we have to say, would, with some verbal modifications, 
hold good. For occasionalism does not question the 
reality of the facts of Nature ; nor does it scruple to 
admit the sequences of Nature, the system in which 
these facts conjoin. We proceed, however, upon the 
position which is commonly taken by theists, that 
secondary causes are real — that matter is an entity 
manifesting forces, though requiring the direct sus- 
tenance and co-working of the power of God. The 

1 For good remarks on the relative notion of a miracle, see the 
valuable Essay of Julius Mtiller on the subject of Miracles, to which 
we shall again refer, c. iv. Relativa quam vocant miraculi notio 
examinatur. 



THE IDEA OF A MIRACLE. 477 

forces resident in Nature subsist and act, but they 
subsist and act, not without the Divine preservation — 
the concursus Dei. 

A miracle is an event which the forces of Nature, 
or secondary causes, operating thus under the ordinary 
Divine preservation, are incompetent to produce. 1 Sec- 
ondary causes may be concerned in the production of a 
miracle. For a miracle (except in the case of creation 
de niliilo) is wrought in Nature, or in the realm of 
second causes ; but these are insufficient to explain it. 
It is an event which only the intervention of the First 
Cause is adequate to produce. Beyond the constant 
upholding of Nature in the normal exercise of its 
powers, there has been an interposition of God to 
effect that which otherwise could not have taken place. 
Pascal has exactly hit the true nature of a miracle, 
when he terms it a result exceeding the natural force 
of the means employed. If the axe floats on the 
water, some power is exerted above the powers of 
Nature. They, if left to themselves, would necessarily 
carry it to the bottom. 

1 In this definition we use the term Nature as a synonym for the 
sum of second causes, or the creation in distinction from G-od. If 
the term he taken less comprehensively, as embracing only man and 
the material universe, or that portion of the material universe of 
which he has any knowledge, then in order to differentiate a miracle 
from other supernatural events — events, for example, which it may 
be thought possible for superhuman, created intelligences to bring 
to pass — we must add another element to the definition and explicitly 
connect the miracle with a volition of God. 



478 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

IS A MIRACLE TO BE CONSIDERED A SUSPENSION OR 
VIOLATION OE NATURAL LAW? 

More commonly this question has been answered 
in the affirmative. Yet the point is one on which 
theologians are not yet agreed. For example, Dr. N. 
W. Taylor, whose discussion of the general subject is 
marked by his wonted acuteness, styles a miracle a 
" deviation " from some law of Nature, and appears, 
also, to sanction the statement that miracles may 
involve a violation of natural law. 1 On the contrary, 
Dr. Julius Muller considers the statement improper 
and unfounded. 2 

The difference is really due to the different mode 
in which the phrase, " law of Nature," is denned by 
the parties respectively. Dr. Taylor means by a law 
of Nature " that established course, or order, of things 
or events, which depends solely on the constitution, 
properties, or nature of any created thing, and which 
admits of no deviation by any created power.' 5 The 
stated connection between a given event and a certain 
set of physical antecedents, which that event is ob- 
served invariably to follow, is taken as the idea of a 
law of Nature. Under this conception, a miracle is 
properly said to involve a counteraction, or suspension, 
or violation of natural law ; for in the case of the 
miracle the presence of a given set of physical antece- 
dents is not followed by the usual event. When a 

1 See Dr. Taylor's Moral Government, Vol. II. pp. 388, 390. 

2 Mtiller's Essay on Miracles, Caput III. 



MIRACLE AND NATURAL LAW. 479 

leper is healed, as the effect of a word uttered by a 
human voice, the connection usually observed to sub- 
sist between physical antecedent and consequent, is 
dissolved. If the law of Nature be this stated connec- 
tion, then of course the natural law is suspended or 
violated. 

But there is another and more exact meaning to 
be given to natural law, which does not involve this 
consequence. What is natural law but the method in 
which a force or energy is observed to operate ? The 
laws of Nature are the method of the operation of the 
forces which inhere in Nature. Such laws are not a 
norm for an energy that is outside of Nature, or is 
imported from without. We need not affirm — we are 
not authorized to affirm — that a miracle involves a 
change in the constitution of matter or mind, or in the 
law under which they act. And if it did involve such 
change— so that matter, for example, were transformed 
into something different from matter — even then the 
miraculous event would be no violation of the laws of 
matter, since matter, by the supposition, has ceased to 
exist, and has been displaced by a substance endowed 
with diverse properties. Suppose the axe to float 
miraculously upon the water. There is here no viola- 
tion of the laws of Nature. For the extraordinary 
event is not due to the abnormal action of the energies 
that belong either to the water or to the iron ; but is 
owing rather to the introduction of a new and extrinsic 
cause which operates according to a law of its own. 



480 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

There is no more violation of natural law than if the 
axe were upheld upon the water by the human hand. 
The effect which a given antecedent, or sum of ante- 
cedents, would otherwise produee, may be counter- 
acted by the presence of other forces which are also 
natural. This is done whenever a stone is thrown into 
the a?r, or water raised by a pump, or lightning di- 
verted from a building by an iron rod. In these cases 
there is not, as we conceive, any violation of natural 
laws. For the law of gravitation is not properly stated 
when it is made to involve the bringing to the earth of 
a stone in those circumstances under which we observe 
the stone to rise ; and the same is true of the other 
examples of a supposed infringement of natural law. 
So the resurrection to life of a man who has once died 
is an effect which tne natural eauses connected with 
the event could not have produced, but, acting by 
themselves, must have excluded. But this change of 
event is not to be ascribed to an alteration of the norm 
under which they act, but wholly to the introduction 
in connection with them of a new and supernatural 
cause. The effect which the physical antecedents, if 
left to themselves, would have produced, is set aside — 
in consequence, however, of an added antecedent, the 
Divine power supernaturally exerted. 

We conclude, therefore, that a miracle, strictly 
speaking, is neither a suspension nor a violation of 
natural laws, but rather an event which would be this, 
were it not for the fact that with the physical ante- 



MIRACLES AND EXPERIENCE. 481 

cedents there has been associated a supernatural 
agency. 

The English writer who deserves credit for clearly 
refuting the idea that a miracle suspends or violates 
the laws of Nature, is the Scottish philosopher, Brown. 1 
However lie may err in unwarrantably extending the 
sense of the term Nature (a point on which Dr. Tay- 
lor animadverts), and however defective may be his 
general theory of causation, his observations on the 
particular topic before us appear to be conclusive. 

IS A MIRACLE CONTRARY TO EXPERIENCE ? 

Here, likewise, attention is required to the mean- 
ing of terms. If experience be a synonym for the 
course of things as deduced from observation, then a 
miracle is contrary to experience. If we are told that 
a leper is cured by a word from human lips, we are 
told of an event which is contrary to experience — that 
is, inconsistent with what has heretofore been observed 
to follow upon the same natural antecedents. If we 
submit the case to experiment and reiterate the trial, 
using the most scientific caution in applying the test, 
no such event is observed to follow. 

But if the opposition to experience that is predi- 
cated of a miracle be understood to involve the idea 
that in asserting a miracle we ascribe to the same set 
of causes an event different from that which they have 

1 Brown's Inquiry into the Relations of Cause and Effect. Ap- 
pendix, Isote E, 
31 



482 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

always been observed to produce, then a miracle is not 
contrary to experience. For a miracle, we repeat, 
implies no contradiction to the maxim that the same 
effect is to be expected to follow the same causes. A 
miracle is, by the supposition, an event resulting from 
the association of a new cause with a given set of 
physical antecedents. It is true that (save in the 
cases, the reality of which is under discussion) we have 
no experience of this association of the supernatural 
agency with the physical antecedents. But this last 
fact is better expressed by the statement that a miracle 
is above or beyond experience — transcends experience 
— than by the statement that it clashes with experi- 
ence. That a miracle should occur when the power 
of God is specially exerted in connection with physical 
agencies, does not clash with experience. 

THE POSSIBILITY OE MIRACLES. 

The possibility of a miracle is the next topic to be 
considered. Is it necessary to argue this point before 
a believer in God ? Is omnipotence incompetent to 
produce events that outreach the capacity of created 
Nature? Has He who gave existence to second 
causes, exhausted His resources of power in the act 
of producing and sustaining them ? Was not the pro- 
duction of these causes itself a stupendous miracle ? 

There is nothing in our knowledge of the constitu- 
tion of matter, and of the internal processes of Nature, 
of which only the phenomena are presented to our 



THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 483 

observation, to afford the shadow of a support to the 
presumptuous proposition that events like the recorded 
miracles of the Bible are inherently impossible to be 
effected. How in the regular course of nature the 
handful of grain multiplies itself in the harvest which 
springs from it, is an insoluble problem. It is an 
inexplicable fact which, after the closest observation 
of the successive phenomena attending the change, we 
still find to be a mystery. That the five loaves should 
be multiplied by an agency both different from that of 
Nature and superior, so as to furnish food for five 
thousand, is another mystery, but a fact which none 
but the atheist can consistently declare impossible. A 
man who would otherwise sink in death is restored to 
health by a medicinal agent administered by a physi- 
cian's hand. We can only point out the visible ante- 
cedents of the effect. How they do their work in the 
hidden laboratory of Nature, we cannot go far in ex- 
plaining. We cannot pierce through the veil that 
hides the interior process from our eyes. In this 
respect, we believe where we cannot see or explain. 
But if it be asserted that the invalid can be restored in 
a briefer time and by the exertion of a power different 
from any remedial agent in the natural world — say, by 
the direct volition of God — who is bold enough to 
affirm, who has the slightest ground for affirming, that 
the thing is impossible ? 

That a miracle is possible is a proposition com- 
mended to credence by the survey of the actual phe- 



484 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

nomena of Nature in its various kingdoms. We see 
that higher forces so far control the action of lower 
that the latter cease to produce the effects which would 
result from their exclusive activity. Mechanical forces 
are subordinated to chemical attraction. Inorganic 
nature is subjected to the operation of vital forces. 
Vegetable and animal existences are endued with 
powers which are, so to speak, superior to the forces 
of unorganized matter. The force of gravitation, for 
example, gives way, or is apparently overborne, by a 
heterogeneous and superior agency. If we could sup- 
pose ourselves divested of all knowledge of organic 
Nature, we should then have the same right, no less 
and no more, to deny, on account of the force of gravi- 
tation, the possibility of the upward growth of a tree, 
as the skeptic has now to deny the possibility of a 
miracle. The former event would be not less foreign 
to experience, not less unprovided for in the existences 
which we had beheld, and in the causes whose opera- 
tion we had observed, than is the instantaneous cure 
of blindness by a volition, or the raising of a dead 
man to life. Nature is the spectacle of realm above 
realm, where the subordinate order is taken up and 
embraced within the superior. Ascending from one 
grade to another, we meet with new and diverse phe- 
nomena, and with a seeming reversal of the laws which 
operate on the plane below. This change is due, how- 
ever, to the incoming and modifying agency of a new 
and heterogeneous class of causes. 



THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES. 485 

Still more suggestive is the relation of the intelli- 
gent will of man to the forces of the unintelligent 
creation. Here, within the domain of Nature, effects 
are produced analogous to the miracle. The will in 
relation to the matter with which it is connected and 
over which it has power, is a heterogeneous and super- 
natural cause. The changes in matter which it pro- 
duces take place, to be sure, in agreement with the 
laws of matter, yet they are changes and effects which 
originated not in the sphere of matter, but in a motor 
outside and above material forces. A gesture of the 
hand is the result of a train of causes — as the action 
of the brain, the nerve, the muscle — a train, however, 
which begins in a volition. It is true, there is no 
analogy, as far as we can judge, between the influence 
of the will upon existences exterior to it, and the exer- 
tion of creative power. The will, in its action on mat- 
ter, can modify that which already existed, but cannot 
call into being what is not. Here the limits of human 
power are reached. A miracle that involves creative 
power has no parallel, as far as we can judge, with any 
possible exertion of man's voluntary agency. But with 
this exception, the control of the human will over 
matter bears a striking resemblance to the more potent 
operation of the Divine will, and exhibits impressively 
the possibility of such a miraculous operation. 



486 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

THE PROBABILITY OF MIRACLES : THE PRESUMPTION 
ADVERSE TO THE OCCURRENCE OF MIRACLES. 

That a miraculous event, looked at by itself, is 
improbable, needs no proof. The incredulity which 
the report of such an event awakens in an educated 
mind, implies an anterior presumption opposed to its 
occurrence. There are some defenders of Christianity 
who are inclined to put a miracle, in regard to the 
proof required to establish it, on the same footing with 
an ordinary event. They take, as we conceive, an 
untenable position, and one that is likely to harm more 
than it helps their cause. It is freely admitted that a 
presumption lies against the occurrence of a miracle. 
But before we can measure the strength of this pre- 
sumptive disbelief, we must inquire into the sources 
of it. 

This presumption is founded in our belief in the 
uniformity of Nature. But what is the nature and 
ground of this belief ? 

It is not, as some philosophers have held, an in- 
stinctive faith that things will continue to be as they 
are — that the future will reproduce the present. 1 For 
our belief in the uniformity of Nature points back- 
ward, as well as forward. It relates to what has oc- 
curred in the past, not less than to what is expected to 
occur hereafter. Moreover, the supposed axiom is 

1 Just objections to this form of statement are presented by J. S. 
Mill, in his Logic. 



THE PROBABILITY OF MIRACLES. 487 

inexact in leaving room for the assumption of a kind 
of sameness in the, recurrence of physical phenomena, 
which experience disproves. For example, the climate 
of our latitude has not always been what it is now ; 
nor is it now what it will be hereafter. The globe and 
the whole physical universe, by the mere operation of 
physical causes, have undergone vast and various 
changes. New and before unobserved phenomena 
have sprung into being. The saying, that things will 
be what they are or have been, describes no original 
belief of the mind, or is, at best, a vague and inaccu- 
rate statement of any such belief. 

The presumptive disbelief of the educated mind in 
miracles is founded in our conviction that there is a 
system of Nature. Scientific investigation has inspired 
a belief in the sway of general laws, as opposed to 
preternatural intervention. The progress of science, 
from Thales downward, has largely consisted in the 
elimination of supposed divine interferences and in 
the disclosure of an established order. One depart- 
ment of Nature after another has been brought within 
the circle of ascertained law. Phenomena, seemingly 
capricious, have been found to recur with a regularity 
not less unvarying than the succession of clay and 
night. Events that were once thought to be wholly 
owing to a preternatural cause can be predicted in 
advance by a process of mathematics. Not two cen- 
turies ago, leading ministers of New England consid- 
ered a comet to be a special messenger from God to 



488 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

forewarn men of punitive calamities which were im- 
pending over them. 1 

The conviction which is excited by the results of 
scientific investigation, relative to the unvarying con- 
trol of natural law, is not without support from another 
quarter. Such an arrangement, generally speaking, 
best harmonizes with our ideas of the wisdom and 
majesty of God. We should expect that He would 
stamp regularity upon the operations of Nature. 
Moreover, the uniformity of Nature — the exemption, 
in general, of Nature from supernatural intervention — 
is a most benevolent arrangement. The fixed course 
of Nature is a vast and indispensable blessing to man. 
It is essential that we should be able to count upon 
the future ; to anticipate the rising of the sun at a 
given hour \ to foresee that the bread which we take 
for the nourishment of life will not turn out to be 
poisonous ; to be certain that when vitality is gone 
there is no hope of revoking the principle of life. 
Were it not for the order of Nature, all human calcula- 
tions would be baffled, human judgments left without 

1 See, for example, Dr. Increase Mather's " KonrjToypcxfiia, or a 
Discourse concerning Comets, wherein the Nature of Blazing Stabs 
is enquired into," &c, &c, with " two Sermons occasioned hy the 
late Blazing Stars." Boston : 1683. We have quoted but a small 
fraction of the title. In the Discourses are stated "the horrible 
massacres, fires, plagues, tempests, hurricanes, wars, and other judg- 
ments " which have followed the appearance of Comets in all ages. 
It is an amusing instance of the fallacious confounding of the propter 
hoc with the post hoc. 



PRESUMPTION AGAINST MIRACLES. 489 

a foundation to rest upon, and infinite disorder and 
confusion everywhere prevail. The ends of a wise 
benevolence are best met by marking out the course 
of Nature and leaving it to move on the appointed 
track. 

Such is the force of these considerations that we 
unhesitatingly reject the testimony by which most 
alleged miracles are supported. In reading early 
historians, like Herodotus, or mediaeval chroniclers, 
like Gregory of Tours, or in listening to the modern 
necromancers, whenever we perceive, and in propor- 
tion as we perceive, that an event which they report 
involves a miracle, we instantaneously disbelieve the 
narrative. Such disbelief is felt to be the dictate of 
reason. 

And this aversion of the mind to give credence to 
a miracle is augmented by the necessity under which 
the historical student is placed, of rejecting so vast an 
amount of miraculous narrative. It may be said, to 
be sure, that the evidence from testimony is defective ; 
for such is the truth in numberless instances of pre- 
tended miracle. Yet, in some cases, were the events 
which are too much for our faith, unmiraculous, we 
should deem the testimony on which they rest to be 
sufficient. In these cases we deny credence simply 
and solely on the ground of a rational reluctance to 
believe in miracles. For example, we credit Herodo- 
tus in a thousand places, where the proofs — apart from 
the character of the events reported — are no greater 



490 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

than those which he brings forward in relating the 
miraculous. % 

We fully concede, then, that there is an antecedent, 
rational presumption against the truth of a narrative 
involving miracle, a presumption resting proximately 
upon the experience of the uniformity of Nature, and 
ultimately upon our conviction of the wisdom and 
desirableness of such an arrangement ; and acquiring 
additional force from the knowledge, which history and 
observation afford, of the credulity of mankind and the 
prevalence of superstition. 

HOW MAY THE PRESUMPTION ADVERSE TO MIRACLES BE 
REMOVED ? 

The uniformity of Nature, in the sense of excluding 
supernatural intervention, is not an intuitive truth — a 
truth of reason. That like causes will produce like 
effects is indeed — as far as the physical world is con- 
cerned, for we leave out of consideration the will — an 
axiom of reason. But the uniformity of Nature in- 
volves another proposition, namely, that the sum of 
forces operating in Nature remains the same — with no 
introduction of supernatural power. And our belief in 
the uniformity of Nature has no greater strength than 
belongs to the presumption that supernatural interposi- 
tion will not occur. 

But every theist knows that supernatural interposi- 
tion has occurred in the past ; that all things which 
he beholds owe their existence to such an exertion of 



THE PRESUMPTION REMOVED. 491 

the Divine will. For he traces them all to an act of 
creation. 

Moreover, science affords a kind of historical proof 
that acts of creation have occurred. The origination 
of all the types or species of living beings found on the 
earth,, requires the supposition of a creative act, since 
Geology points back to a time when no germs of ani- 
mated being existed on the globe. If the old doctrine 
of the original distinctness of existing species be still 
held, which no facts have thus far disproved, we are 
led to the necessary assumption of a series of creative 
acts. The uniformity of Nature is thus seen to be no 
absolute truth. 

But for what end does material Nature exist ? 
Surely not for its own sake. The end for which Na- 
ture exists must be sought outside of Nature itself. 
Nature is only a part of a more comprehensive system. 
Nature is an instrument, not an end. The moral 
administration of God is superior and all-comprehen- 
sive. The fixed order of Nature is appointed to pro- 
mote the ends of wisdom and goodness. The same 
motive which dictated the establishment of this order 
may prescribe a deviation from it ; or rather may have 
originally determined that the natural order should 
at certain points give way to supernatural mani- 
festation. 

That is to say, if the object to be secured is suffi- 
ciently commanding, or, in other words, if the benefit 
to result outweighs all the evils which may be sup- 



492 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

posed to attend a Divine intervention, the antecedent 
presumption against the miracle is set aside and over- 
borne. 

Supposing an end worthy of the intervention of 
God, a miracle is perfectly consistent with the immu- 
table character of the Divine administration. This lies 
in the unity of the end. The same end is pursued, 
but the means of attaining it are varied. Now He 
makes use of natural law, and now of special interven- 
tion. There is no disturbance of the grand harmony 
that pervades the Divine administration. The acts of 
Divine Providence, both natural and miraculous, form 
together one consistent whole. A commander, who 
commonly issues his orders through subordinates, does 
not interfere with the ends he has in view, if he 
chooses, now and then, to ride over the field and per- 
sonally convey his commands. He is guilty of no 
fickleness, if he alter the disposition of his forces to 
suit a new set of circumstances. This alteration may 
even have been embraced in his foresight. Nor is the 
Ruler of the country inconsistent with himself, when 
he augments, or diminishes, or wholly disbands, the 
military force which he has himself organized. For 
this force does not exist for its own sake. It was 
created for a special end outside of itself, and is 
moulded with sole reference to the benefit sought. A 
miracle is not a prodigy, a mere wonder (rtQceg), 
fulfilling do moral end, a disturbance of the natural 
order, carrying with it no advantage. But a miracle 



IMMUTABILITY OE GOD. 493 

is also a sign (arj/uaiov), signifying something, fulfill- 
ing an idea, and serving an end. 1 

Hence, a miracle implies no afterthought on the 
part of God — as if he resorted to a measure which He 
had not originally purposed. In the plan of this 
worlds miracles not less than natural events had their 
appointed place. The Divine Being as truly deter- 
mined to exert supernatural power at the points where 
miracles occur, as to act elsewhere through general 
laws. In short, miracles are fully accordant with the 
laws of the Universe, or of the universal system which 
includes God. A departure, in one sense of the terms, 
from the law of Nature, they are yet harmonious with, 
and required by, the laws of the Universe. The 
higher law prescribes their occurrence. 2 

1 Of the three terms used in the New Testament to designate a 
miracle, re pas corresponds to miraculum and denotes the subjective 
effect on the mind ; orj/xe^iou denotes the significance of the event ; and 
owafxas the supernatural energies to which it must be due. 

2 It is a relief to turn from the vagueness of many modern writers 
to the greater precision of the Schoolmen. Thomas Aquinas (Su?n- 
rna, P. I. Qusest. 105, Art. 6) handles the question whether God can 
do anything praeter ordinem rebus indutum. He explains that every 
order is dependent upon a cause, and that one order may be subject 
to another that is higher and more comprehensive : as the family 
which is dependent on the father is embraced in the city, which, in 
turn, is included in the kingdom. A miracle is no violation of the 
order of things, as dependent upon the First Cause. 

In another passage (P. I. Qusest. 110, Art. 4), Thomas discusses 
the question utrum angeli possint facer e miracula. He admits that 
superhuman creatures can bring to pass events which are miracles 
quoad nos ; that is. events which surpass the power of any created 
causes with which we are acquainted. But he responds to the ques- 



494 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

It will be objected that we are unqualified to say 
when a moral emergency that calls for a miracle is 
constituted. To a certain extent, this may be granted. 
We cannot take into view the entire Divine system. 
We may be disposed to set up a claim for the inter- 
vention of God in cases where a wiser being would be 
of another mind. This, however, may fairly be de- 
manded of every theist, that as he believes in an inter- 
vention of God at the successive epochs of creation, so 
he shall be prepared to expect a similar intervention at 
epochs equally momentous in the new spiritual crea- 
tion, or the redemption of mankind from their bondage 
to evil. The antecedent presumption against the 
occurrence of miracles may exist in different degrees 
of strength. It may, in a given set of circumstances, 
be greatly weakened without wholly disappearing. 
But a crisis can be conceived to exist, an exigency can 
be conceived to arise, where this presumption wholly 
vanishes and even yields to an expectation of the oppo- 
site character. The need of Revelation, and of mira- 
cles to verify and give effect to Revelation, constitutes 
an occasion justifying the Divine intervention. 

THE FALLACY OF HTJMe's ARGUMENT. 

The preceding remarks suggest the proper answer 
to the reasoning of Hume against the possibility of 

tion negatively, because a miracle, properly speaking, is praeler ordi- 
nem totius naturae creatae — something, therefore, which only God 
can do. 



FALLACY OF HUME'S AKGUMENT. 495 

proving a miracle. He ignores the fact of a supernat- 
ural moral government over the world of Nature and 
of men. Our belief both in the constancy of Nature 
and in human testimony, says Hume, is founded on 
experience. In regard to the former point, this expe- 
rience is uniform (since the cases of supposed miracle, 
being under discussion, are not to be assumed as 
exceptions). In respect to the credibility of testimony, 
however, if we suppose apparently credible testimony 
to be piled never so high, nothing more is required for 
believing it to be falsely given than to suppose a viola- 
tion of natural law ; that is, of the laws connected with 
the giving of credible testimony. But if we accept the 
testimony, and believe the fact it alleges, we are 
obliged to assume the same thing ; namely, the viola- 
tion of natural law. In other words, we are required 
by the reporters of a miraculous event to accept one 
miracle in order to avoid another ! We have stated 
the gist of Hume's argument. The fallacy does not 
consist in the postulate that a miracle is contrary to 
experience ; for there is a logical propriety in this pro- 
visional assumption. But the fallacy lies in the 
assumption that a miracle is just as likely to occur in 
the one place as in the other ; that we may as ration- 
ally expect a miracle to be wrought in the matter of 
testimony, whereby the laws of evidence are miracu- 
lously converted into a vehicle for deceiving and mis- 
leading mankind, as to suppose a miracle in the physi- 
cal world, like the healing of the blind. Hume's 



496 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

argument is valid only on the hypothesis that God is 
as ready to exert supernatural power to make truth- 
ful men falsify, as to perform the miracles of the Gos- 
pel. Introduce the fact of a personal God, a moral 
Government, and a wise and benevolent end to be sub- 
served through miraculous interposition, and Hume's 
reasoning is emptied of all its force. 1 

THE SPECIAL FUNCTION OR USE OE MIRACLES. 

This is a topic deserving of more full examination. 
Why is Revelation attended with miracles ? What 
particular end is subserved by supernatural manifesta- 

1 Most of the opponents of Hume have failed to overthrow his 
reasoning. Assuming that the uniformity of Nature is ascertained 
from testimony, they have claimed that testimony does not prove 
this uniformity to be unvarying, and that Hume, in taking the oppo- 
site position, begs the question in dispute. If they are correct, there 
is no greater a priori improbability of a miracle than of a natural 
event ; and the same amount of proof which satisfies us that a man 
has sunk in the water, suffices to prove that he has walked on the 
water or subdued the billows with a word. If they are correct, an 
event inexplicable by natural laws is as credible as the every-day 
phenomena of Nature. They forget that the uniformity of Nature is 
a legitimate generalization from experience. It is not a bare record 
of facts and observations, but an authorized (though not absolute) 
generalization "on the basis of them. It is true that J. S. Mill and philos- 
ophers of the Positivist type, who exclude an a priori element from 
induction, have no good warrant for any generalization — any dictum 
more comprehensive than the cases actually observed. Hume, to be 
sure, is logically involved by his philosophical theories in the same 
embarrassment. But on a sound philosophy, we are obliged to admit 
a presumption against miracles, which requires to be removed. 



THE FUNCTION OF MIRACLES. 497 

tion in connection with Christianity ? These are the 
questions to be considered. 

It has been sometimes thought that the miracles 
of Christ were to prove His Divinity. But this, in our 
judgment, is an error. The miracles of Christ do not 
differ in kind from those which are attributed to the 
prophets of the Old Testament. By the prophets the 
sick were healed and the dead revived. Nothing in 
the quality of the works wrought by Christ, therefore, 
can authorize us to put this interpretation upon them. 
If we look at the teaching of the New Testament, we 
discover that neither Christ nor the apostles attach 
this peculiar significance to His miraculous works. On 
the contrary, they are explicitly said to be performed 
by the Father, or by the Father through Him. They 
are said to be effected by a power which, though it 
permanently abide in Kim, was yet given Him of 
God. They are sometimes preceded by the offering 
of prayer to the Father. They are declared to be a 
manifestation of the power and majesty of the Father. 
And in keeping with these representations is the 
circumstance that no miraculous works proceeded 
from Jesus prior to the epoch of His baptism and 
entrance on His public ministry. The Divinity of 
Jesus is a truth which rests upon His testimony and 
that of the apostles, and not upon the fact that He per- 
formed works exceeding human power. 1 

1 The scriptural proof that the miracles of Christ were not to 
prove his Divinity, is presented more in detail in the Essay of Muller. 
32 



498 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

The old view that miracles are to authenticate the 
divine mission of a religious teacher, is the correct 
view. They are a proof which God condescends to 
afford, that the person by whom they are wrought is 
clothed with an authority to speak in His name. This 
being their special office, Christ never performed 
miracles for the promotion of His own personal com- 
fort. That miracles are in this way a testimony of 
God, is declared by the Saviour. " The works which 
the Father* hath given me to finish, the same works 
that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath 
sent me." \ " ' If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly/ 
Jesus answered them, ' I told you and ye believed not ; 
the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear 
witness of me.' " 2 We need not cite the numerous 
passages in which the miracles are set forth as the 
proper signs of Messiahship. An emphatic example 
is the response of Jesus to the messengers who came 
from John the Baptist with the question whether He 
was indeed the Christ. The miracles of Christ, then, 

See Mark vii. 34; John xi. 41, 42, v. 36, ix. 25, 33, xiv. 10, xi. 40 ; 
cf. Luke ix. 43. See also Acts ii. 22, cf. Acts x. 38. There is only 
one passage (John x. 11) which could be thought to suggest a differ- 
ent view. But the $6ga which Christ manifested forth by the mira- 
cle at Oana was the messianic glory, implying, indeed, in the view of 
John, divinity (see John i. 14) ; yet not identically the S6ga for which 
Christ prays in John xvii. 5. Hence John x. 11 cannot be consid- 
ered as inconsistent with the general tenor of the New Testament 
representations on this subject, which is seen in the passages above 
cited, many of which are from John. 

1 John v. 36. 2 John x. 24, 25. 



IMPORTANCE OF MIRACLES. 499 

are the testimony of God to His supernatural, divine 
mission • and the miracles of the apostles have a sim- 
ilar design and import. 1 

Is this end unimportant ? Surely, if the Christian 
religion is important, it is essential that its authorita- 
tive character should be established. Whether the 
doctrine is of God, or Christ speaks of himself; 
whether the Gospel is only one more experiment in 

1 Muller has attempted, successfully, as we think,* to show that 
the miracles of Christ were also intended to be symbolical of His spir- 
itual agency, and of relations in His spiritual kingdom. The miracles 
of healing symbolized, and commended to faith, His ability to cure 
the soul of its disorders. The feeding of the multitude set forth the 
possibility, through Him, of accomplishing great things in His cause 
by apparently insignificant means. His resurrection from the dead is 
a standing symbol, in the writings of Paul, for the spiritual awaken- 
ing from the death of sin. 

That the miracles of Christ, besides the principal end of authen- 
ticating his mission, had other collateral motives and ends, is not 
questioned. They undoubtedly serve to impress the mind with the 
fact of the 'personality of God. They are thus an antidote to Pan- 
theistic sentiment, as well as to the Deism which puts God far off. 
They are, also, a natural expression of the compassionate feelings of 
Christ towards all in distress. Says Chastel, in his excellent Etudes 
Historiques, upon the Influence of Charity in the early Church, p. 
30, " Cest jparce que Jesus aimait que, tout en publiant ia nouvelle 
du royaume des Cieux, il guerissait, dit l'historien, les maladies et les 
langueurs du peuple (Matt. iv. 23, 24). Cette meine compassion qui 
le saisissait a la vue de la foule errante et sans guide (Matt. ix. 36), 
Tattendrissait aussi sur d'autres souffrances ; il allait de lieu en lieu 
faisant du bien et laissant partout des marques de son inepuisable 
sympathie." This is true ; yet there was another, which was, also, 
the principal motive — the attestation of His messianic mission and 
office. 



500 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

speculation, one more effort of erring reason to solve 
the problems of life, is surely a question of capital 
importance. Every sober and practical mind desires, 
first of all, to know if the Gospel can be depended 
upon. The authority and certainty of the Christian 
system are of inestimable value ; and these are guaran- 
teed by miracles. 

Just at this point we encounter one of the most 
popular objections to the attestation of a Revelation by 
miracles. A miracle, it is urged, is an exertion of 
power. But how can a display of power operate to 
convince the reason or quicken the sense of obligation ? 
The binding force of a moral precept lies in its intrin- 
sic character. Obedience on any other ground is 
worthless. Now can a miracle add to the obligation 
to follow that which is right ? or create a sense of 
obligation which the law itself fails to excite ? Is not 
a miracle in such a case something heterogeneous, 
impertinent ? The objection is equivalent to the 
discarding of the principle of authority in religion 
altogether. We answer, that as far as Christianity is 
preceptive, the force of authority is a distinct motive 
superadded to the perceived rectitude of the law, and 
is both a legitimate and effective motive — as truly as 
parental authority, including the whole influence of a 
parent's will and a parent's love, is a proper influence 
in the heart of a child. As far as Christianity is a 
testimony to truth which the human mind cannot dis- 
cern or cannot to its own full satisfaction prove, every- 



THE FUNCTION OF MIRACLES. 501 

thing depends on having this testimony fully estab- 
lished. And, in general, there is a fallacy in the sup- 
position that religious truth must be either discerned 
intuitively and with perfect clearness, or be cast aside 
as of no use. Reason may be educated up to the 
understanding and appreciation of what was once 
comparatively dark and unmeaning. The outward 
reception of that which is commended by authority 
may be followed by insight. This is that elevation of 
reason to the level of revealed truth which Lord Bacon 
declares that we are bound to accomplish. We recog- 
nize the principle of authority whenever we devote 
ourselves to the study of a scientific treatise which we 
know to be true, but have not yet mastered. Every 
boy who engages in the study of Euclid, does this 
with the prior conviction that his text-book contains 
truth, but truth which he can appropriate to himself 
not without strenuous exertion. The Gospel system, 
when attested by miracles, makes an analogous claim 
upon the soul. It calls for obedience, consecration ; it 
rewards these with apprehension, insight. The creden- 
tials which attest it put the mind in the right attitude 
for inwardly receiving its lofty and inspiring lessons. 

While it is the office of the Christian miracles to 
verify the supernatural, divine mission of Christ, we 
are far from considering that they are the exclusive, or 
even the foremost, proof of this great truth ; or even 
that, by themselves, they are adequate to the produc- 
tion of an inward faith. But of their relation to the 



502 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

other sources of Christian evidence, we shall speak 
more fully under another head. 

A recollection of the end for which miracles are 
wrought, will expose the fallacy of the current skep- 
tical objection that miracles would imply a flaw in the 
constitution of material Nature, which needs to be 
repaired through a special intervention. The need of 
miracles is not founded on the existence of any defect 
in Nature. The system of Nature is good and is 
worthy of God. It is fitted, in itself considered, to 
disclose the attributes of the Creator and to call forth 
feelings of adoration in the human mind. The defect 
is not in Nature. But the mind of man is darkened 
so that this primal revelation is obscurely discerned ; 
his character, moreover, is corrupted beyond the power 
of self-recovery, in consequence of his apostasy from 
God. Now, if God shall mercifully approach with new 
light and new help, why shall He not verify to man 
the fact of His presence, by supernatural manifestations 
of His power and goodness ? In this case, Nature 
is used as an instrument for an ulterior moral end. 
The miracle is not to remedy an imperfection in Na- 
ture, but is, like the Revelation which it serves to 
attest, a product of the condescension of God. He 
condescends to address evidence to the senses, or to the 
understanding through the senses, in order to open a 
way for the conveyance of the highest spiritual blessing 
to mankind. Material Nature, be it remembered, 






MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. 503 

does not include the end of its existence in itself. It 
is a subordinate member of a vaster system, and has 
only an instrumental value. 

Of a piece with the objection just noticed, is the 
vague representation that something sacred is violated 
by a miracle. Hume styled a miracle a transgression 
of natural law — skilfully availing himself of a word 
which usually denotes the infringement of a moral law, 
and so carries with it an association of guilt. 1 Several 
recent writers have more directly propounded a like 
notion. Such views may be pertinent under a scheme 
of sentimental Pantheism where Nature is deified. 
Only he who holds, with Spinoza, that Nature is God, 
can deem a miracle repugnant to the attributes of God. 
When the attempt is made to connect such notions 
with any higher theory of the universe, they deserve 
no respect, but rather contempt. As if it were derog- 
atory to the Divine Being to save a human life by 
any other than physical agencies, even when the prin- 
cipabend to be attained is the verification of a heaven- 
given remedy for the soul and for the disorders which 
sin has brought into it ! 

THE RELATION OP MIRACLES TO THE MORAL PROOFS OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 

The question has often been discussed whether the 
strongest proof of the divine origin of Christianity is 
found in its doctrine or its miracles. Some have gone 

1 Hume's Essays, Vol. II. Appendix, K. 



504 TEE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

so far as to say that the doctrine proves the miracles, 
not the miracles the doctrine. The truth on the subject 
has been more properly set forth in the aphorism of 
Pascal : "'Doctrines must be judged by miracle- ; 
miracles must be judged by doctrines/ 3 

It is plain that a doctrine which the unperverted 
conscience pronounces immoral or inconsistent with 
the perfections of God, cannot be received on the 
ground of alleged or supposed miracles attending it. 
This principle is declared in the Bible itself, in a mem- 
orable injunction given to the Israelites. 1 We must 
conclude, to be sure, that all wonders which the 
teacher of such doctrine performs, are " lying won- 
ders ; " that they are either the product of jugglery or 
are wrought by supernatural evil beings whose force 
surpasses that of men, and who are, therefore, abl \ 
counterfeit the works of Divine power. 

In accordance with the tendency of this principle, 
is the reply of Jesus to the charge that his miracles 
were wrought by the power of Satan. He does not 
deny that works, surpassing the power of men, may 
be done through the aid of devils ; but he responds to 
the charge by a moral consideration. An evil being 
would not work against himself and exert power against 
his own minions. 

So much is clear, then, that a doctrine must be 
negatively unobjectionable on the score of morality or 
of moral tendency, in order to challenge our faith, 

:::::. l—±. 



MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. 505 

whatever wonderful works may attend the annunciation 
of it. 

But a still more positive and important place be- 
longs to doctrine in the evidence for the divine origin 
of Christianity. The foregoing discussion has evinced 
that in order to prove miracles, the anterior presump- 
tion adverse to their occurrence must be set aside. 
The necessity of Revelation and of a method of salva- 
tion which man is unable to originate, partially pre- 
pares the mind to expect miracles. But the contents 
of the professed Revelation are of not less moment in 
their bearing on this anterior expectation. The more 
excellent the doctrine, the more it seems to surpass the 
capacity of the unaided human faculties, the more it 
appears adapted to the necessities of our nature, in 
fine, the more worthy it is to have God for its author, 
so much the more credibility is given to the miracles 
which, it is claimed, have accompanied it. The doc- 
trine and the miracles are two mutually supporting 
species of evidence. The more the mind is struck 
with the divine excellence of the doctrine, the more 
likely does it seem that this doctrine should be attend- 
ed with miracles. If the doctrine is noble and worthy 
and sufficient, we naturally look for miracles, and only 
require that they shall be recommended to belief by 
faithful testimony. 

In these remarks we have compared the doctrine 
with the miracles, as sources of proof. The moral 
proofs of Christianity, however, comprehend much 



508 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

more than what is understood by Christian doctrine. 
As affecting the presumption relative to the occurrence 
of miracles, we must take into view the character of 
Jesus, the entire spirit and plan of his life, all the 
circumstances connected with the planting of Christian- 
ity in the world. It is unwarranted and unwise to 
isolate one element of Christianity, as the miracles, or 
the doctrine, from the other elements which are con- 
nected with it, and form, as it were, one vital whole. 
Christ and Christianity, as they are presented in the 
New Testament Scriptures, stand out as one complex 
phenomenon, which we are called upon to explain. 
Nothing can be appreciated by itself, but everything 
must be looked at in its organic relation. The moral 
evidence of the supernatural origin of Christianity in- 
cludes the teaching of Christ and the Christian system 
of doctrine, but it embraces much more — much that 
is inseparably associated with the doctrine. 

Farther still, we are required to consider Christian- 
ity in the light of a mighty historic movement, begin- 
ning in the remote past, extending in a continuous 
progress through many ages, culminating in the advent 
and life of Christ, and in the establishment of his 
Church, but flowing onward in its effects, through an 
ever-widening channel, down to the present day. We 
have to contemplate the striking peculiarity of this 
great historic movement, which embraces the unfold- 
ing, through successive stages, or epochs, of a religion 
distinct in its spirit as well as in its renovating power 



MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. 507 

from all other religions known among men. And we 
have to connect with this view a survey of its subse- 
quent diffusion and leavening influence in human so- 
ciety. Comparing this religion with the native charac- 
teristics of the people among whom it appeared, and 
from whose hands the priceless treasure was at length 
delivered to mankind, we are to ask ourselves if this 
religion, so pure and salutary, so enduring and influen- 
tial, so strong as to survive temporary eclipse and 
withstand through a long succession of ages, before the 
full light appeared, an adversary as powerful as human 
barbarism and corruption, can be the product of man's 
invention. And whatever reason there is for rejecting 
this supposition 1 as irrational, is so much argument for 
the Christian miracles. 

It deserves remark that miracles appear especially 
at the signal epochs in the progress of the gradually 
developing system of religion. This circumstance has 
been pointed out by Christian apologists. 1 In connec- 
tion with Moses, w T ho marks an era in the communica- 
tion of the true religion ; then, after a long interval, in 
connection with the prophets, wdio introduce an era 
not less peculiar and momentous, and then, after a 
long suspension of miraculous manifestation, in con- 
junction with the final and crowning epoch of Revela- 
tion, with the ministry of Christ and the founding of 
the Church, the supernatural is seen to break into the 
course of history. There is an impressive analogy be- 

1 See Dr. A. P. Peabody's Christianity, tJie Religion of Mature. 



508 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

tween the spiritual creation or renewal of humanity, 
and the physical creation, where successive eras are 
inaugurated by the exertion of supernatural agency in 
the introduction of new species, and after each epoch 
history is remanded, as it were, to its natural course 
in pursuance of an established order. Miracle would 
seem to be the natural expression and verification of 
an opening era in the spiritual enlightenment of man- 
kind, w T hen new forces are introduced by the great 
Author of light and life, and a new development 
sets in. 

In this place may be noticed a criticism which is 
frequently heard, in these days, from the side of disbe- 
lief. Miracles, it is said, are put forward as the 
evidences of Revelation, but miracles are the very 
thing which require to be proved. " Miracles," it is 
triumphantly asserted, " instead of affording satisfactory 
proof of anything, are now usually found in the dock 
instead of the witness-box of the court of criticism.' 9 1 
To this we reply, that when the testimony of a witness 
is such as to conclude the case, and that witness is 
impeached, of course the main effort is turned in the 
direction of establishing his credibility. When a mes- 
senger brings a communication of a momentous nature, 
the character of his credentials becomes a question 
of vast consequence and draws to itself a proportionate 
degree of attention. Are these credentials genuine, 
the contents of his message will command respect. 

1 Mackay, The Tubingen School, &c, p. 56. 



MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. 509 

Are the credentials fabricated, his message is devoid 
of authority. To scrutinize the credentials and, in 
case they are worthy of credit, to remove the doubts 
of the skeptical, is thus a matter of prime importance. 
But the fallacy of the objection implied in the quota- 
tion above, does not rest on this consideration alone. 
If miracles attest the Christian Revelation, they are 
also a part — one side — of that Revelation itself. They 
are constitutive of Revelation, so that in proving them 
we are establishing not so much a collateral circum- 
stance as a part of the main fact. They are one ele- 
ment in the immediate manifestation of God. The 
doctrine is divine, but the works also are divine. 

The presumption in favor of the miracles, that is 
created by the excellence and credibility of the doctrine, 
does not supersede the need of miracles, nor does it 
supersede the need of faithful testimony to their occur- 
rence. He has a poor understanding of logic who 
does not know that two sources of evidence may lend 
to each other a mutual support. The excellence of the 
doctrine sustains the testimony to the miracles ; the 
proof of the miracles establishes the divinity of the 
doctrine. 

It is sometimes urged that if miracles are necessary 
in the original communication of Christianity, they are 
not less to be expected in the propagation of it. And 
the question is asked why we refuse to give credit to 
reports of more modern miracles, or why such miracles 



510 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

are not wrought now in conjunction with missionary 
labor? We do not consider the supposition that 
miracles have been wrought since the apostolic age to 
be so absurd as many seem to regard it. So thorough 
a historical critic as Neander hesitates to disbelieve the 
testimony to the miracles said to be performed by 
that devout and holy preacher, St. Bernard, and so 
great a man as Edmund Burke takes the same ground 
in respect to the miracles attributed to early Saxon 
missionaries in Britain. But there is generally a defect 
in the character of the testimony, in the habits of 
careful observation, or of trustworthy reporting, which, 
apart from other considerations, prevents us from 
giving credit to the Catholic miracles. It is remark- 
able that some of the most eminent mediaeval mission- 
aries disclaimed the power of performing miracles. 
This is true of Ansgar, the famous apostle of the North 
of Europe, and of Boniface, the still more celebrated 
apostle of Germany. They were ready to give cre- 
dence to the pretensions of others, but for themselves 
professed to be endued with no supernatural powers. 
Besides this, however, there is another consideration 
of almost decisive weight. The origination of Chris- 
tianity, a method of salvation, is beyond human power ; 
not so the propagation of the religion which is once 
communicated. We agree that the general method of 
the Divine government is that of leaving men to dis- 
cover for themselves what the unaided human faculties 
are competent to find out. The laws of astronomy, 



POST-APOSTOLIC MIRACLES. 511 

the physical structure and history of the globe, with 
all the sciences and arts which belong to civilization, 
it is left for human investigation, in the slow toil of 
centuries, to develop. But the true knowledge of God 
was practically inaccessible ; salvation was something 
which fallen man could not achieve of himself. It 
accords, therefore, with the method of God to leave the 
diffusion of the blessings of Christianity, when they 
are once communicated, to the agency of men, with- 
holding miraculous (though not supernatural) assistance 
to then endeavors. 1 It is plain that in the Divine ad- 
ministration there is what has been called an economy, 
or sparing use, of miracle. The Saviour's whole man- 
ner of speaking on the subject, as well as the course 
which he pursued, appears to indicate that miracles 
are an accommodation to human weakness, and are 
granted in response to an unwonted exigency. Com- 
paring ourselves, or any heathen nation, with the age 
contemporary with Christ, we find ourselves in posses- 
sion of other proofs derived from the operation of 
Christianity in the world, which may well stand in the 
room of any ocular demonstration of its heavenly 



1 That supernatural agency of God which is not manifestly super- 
natural, hut which is so connected with the operation of natural 
causes that its presence is not palpable, we do not style miracu- 
lous. To this supernatural, but not miraculous, agency, belongs the 
Eegeneration and Sanctification of the soul. Providential answers 
to prayer may fall under the same head— to prayer, for instance, for 
the restoration of the sick. 



512 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

The foregoing remarks will prepare the reader for 
the observation that miracles are an inferior species of 
proof, compared with the moral evidence of the divine 
origin of Christianity, and, independently of the im- 
pression made by this last kind of evidence, mnst 
fail to convince. Snch is undeniably the rank assigned 
to miracles by the Saviour himself. Apart from 
miracles, there was proof of his divine mission, as he 
considered, which ought to satisfy the mind. But if 
this proof left the mind still skeptical, he pointed to 
the miracles. " Believe me that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me ; or else believe me for the very 
works' sake." 1 A weak faith, an inchoate faith, miracles 
might confirm. Where there was a receptive temper, 
some degree of spiritual susceptibility, miracles were a 
provocative and aid of faith. But where there was an 
entire insensibility to the moral side of the gospel, or 
an absence of any such craving for the truth as gave 
it a degree of self-evidencing power, the Saviour 
refused to work miracles. Miracles have for such 
minds no convincing efficacy. They would be referred 
either to occult natural causes or to diabolical agency. 
Miracles could develop and reinforce the faith which 
moral evidence had partially awakened. They could 
not create that faith outright. They could not serve as 
a substitute for the proofs which touch directly the 
reason and conscience. They could not kindle spiritual 
life under the ribs of death. They were an appeal to 

1 John xiv. 11. 



MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. 513 

the senses, symbolizing the spiritual operation of the 
gospel, and suborclinately aiding the confidence of the 
darkened soul in the divine reality of the gospel. All 
the teaching of Christ concerning the place and use of 
his miracles, and concerning the comparative value and 
dignity of the proof from miracles and from the moral 
evidence of his divine mission, corroborates the doc- 
trine we have laid down, that the former are subsidiary 
and secondary, and are due to the condescension of 
God, who affords an extraordinary prop, and one we 
have properly no right to demand, to that hesitating, 
incomplete faith which has been excited by the superior 
appeals flowing directly from the Christian system itself 
and the character of its Author. 

It was the tendency of the school of Paley to give 
the greatest prominence in the Evidences of Revela- 
tion, to the miracles. The internal argument in then: 
hands often received less than justice. Belief was 
sought to be produced by the constraining influence 
of authority through the medium of supernatural 
interposition. In that reaction against this school, of 
which Coleridge more than any other individual was 
the efficient promoter, the position of the two sources 
of proof was reversed. It became common to speak of 
the evidence from miracles in disparaging terms, as if 
it w^as deserving of no respect. This tendency of 
course found support from such as rejected the super- 
natural altogether from any concern in the origin of 
Christianity. In some quite recent writers, the pen- 

33 



514 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 

dulum oscillates again to the former place. The 
sound view, in our judgment, lies between the two 
extremes, and this view has the sanction of the Saviour 
himself. 



ESSAY XII. 

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CON- 
CERNING HIMSELF. 

Pharisees on a certain occasion taunted Jesus with 
pretending to be a witness to his own claims. A record 
which he bore of himself, they said, deserved no credit, 
on the accepted principle that a man cannot be wit- 
ness in his own case. He replied that his testimony, 
although it related to himself and his own pretensions, 
was nevertheless true and credible. To be sure, there 
was, besides, an objective proof answering to the sub- 
jective witness of his own consciousness, and verifying 
that witness to others, if not to himself. There was, 
namely, the testimony which God gave through the 
works which Jesus wrought ; works which man with- 
out God could not have done. Yet his own testimony, 
the testimony of his own consciousness, his inward con- 
viction or intuition relative to his mission, and to the 
office that belonged to him among men, he justly held 
to be of itself, under the circumstances, a valid proof. 1 

1 John viii. 14 : u Though I bare record of myself, yet my record 
is true." Only in verbal opposition to this affirmation is John v. 31. 
" The seeming contradiction hetAveen the present declaration and the 
former concession of Jesus is explained, if we suppose that he there 



516 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

To develop and support this proposition is the pur- 
pose of the present Essay. 

In respect to the contents, or proper interpretation, 
of the testimony of Jesus regarding himself, there is, 
of course, some difference of opinion. But the points, 
to which we now draw attention, certainly formed a 
part of it, as all sober criticism must allow. In the 
first place, Jesus claimed to act in virtue of a special 
divine commission. He had been sent into the world 
in a sense altogether peculiar, and for the discharge 
of a mission which was of strictly supernatural origin. 
This was the primary, the generic, the often-repeated, 
claim of Jesus, which it were idle to attempt to fritter 
away or to resolve into a figure. He was preeminently, 
and by supernatural appointment, the Messenger of 
God in this world. In the second place, he affirmed 
of himself a lofty and peculiar relationship to God. 
We need not here say all that we believe upon this 
point. It is sufficient for our present argument to 
notice his claim to a knowledge of that invisible Being, 

thought proper to follow the common human rule, and to adduce the 
testimony of others in his behalf; whilst here, on the contrary, he 
proceeds in conformity with the higher principle that the Divine can 
only be testified to and proved by itself. Besides, there is in the 
thing itself no contradiction. His self-testimony, resting upon the 
consciousness of his divine mission, corresponds in a sense to the 
testimony of his works (John v. 36), inasmuch as these always pre- 
suppose such a consciousness." (De Wette on John viii. 13). See, 
also, Meyer (on John v. 31), where Euthymius is quoted to the effect 
that in this passage Jesus is merely anticipating the objection of the 
Jews — not uttering his own sentiment. 



CLAIMS OF JESUS. 517 

which in kind and degree surpasses that possessed by- 
all other men, and to a spiritual union with Him as 
intimate as language is capable of expressing. He 
professes to stand in this exalted, mysterious fellowship 
with God ; to be a partaker of divine prerogatives ; 
and, after departing from the world, to sit on the 
throne of universal dominion. In the third place, he 
assumes towards men an office the most elevated which 
imagination can conceive. He claims to be the moral 
Guide and Deliverer of mankind. He does not hesi- 
tate to style himself, in this relation, the Light, or the 
Illuminator of the world ; taking the same place in the 
kingdom of souls that belongs to the Sun in the mate- 
rial system. In the exertion of the office committed 
to him, he forgives sin. This awful prerogative, which 
it were impious for a mortal to take upon himself, he 
does not hesitate to exercise. He invites the world of 
men, in their conscious infirmity and guilt, to rest 
upon him. He undertakes to procure for them recon- 
ciliation with God. He bids them pray with confi- 
dence, in his name. He promises, even, to work within 
them moral purification through potent agencies of 
which he is the prime mover. In short, he assumes 
to be the Deliverer of the souls of men from their 
bondage to sin and exposure to retribution. How 
exalted, how unparalleled the claim ! And to crown 
all, judgment over the race is lodged in his hands. He 
is the arbiter of destinies. " Before him shall be 
gathered all nations. " 



518 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

Ill this sketch of the extraordinary claims of Jesus, 
we have exaggerated nothing, but rather have pur- 
posely stopped short of their full magnitude. They 
are all included within his consciousness. That is to 
say; his conscious relation to God involved all this. 
" I know" he said, " whence I come, and whither I 
go." Back of all these claims was a full, inward per- 
suasion or intuition of their reality. 

Now the question is, Was this consciousness of 
Christ veracious or deceptive ? Did it represent the 
reality, or was it the fabric of enthusiasm ? Plainly 
such is the alternative to which we are brought. 
It is understood that we leave out of sight for the 
present, the miracles — the objective verification of 
the consciousness and the claims of Christ. Is 
this consciousness — for so we may be allowed to 
style the intuitive conviction to which we refer — of 
itself, in the case before us, trustworthy? Or, have 
we in these claims an instance of unexampled self- 
delusion ? 

We proceed to offer reasons why this last hypo- 
thesis cannot rationally be entertained. 

One very remarkable feature of the Gospel history, 
which has an important bearing on the present in- 
quiry, we must notice at the outset. The peculiar 
claim of Jesus was most deliberately made, and was 
made persistently in the face of all the opposition 
and scrutiny which it underwent. Moreover, the 
utmost stress was laid upon it by Jesus himself. It 



CONSCIOUS GREATNESS OF HIS CLAIMS. 519 

cannot be said that lie was not distinctly aware of 
the momentous import of the claim which he put forth. 
This he understood in all its length and breadth. 
It is plain that he had a calm, yet full and vivid, 
appreciation of its nature. Had he needed any spur 
to reflection, this would have been furnished by the 
unbelieving and inimical attitude of almost all around 
him. Never were pretensions more constantly and inge- 
niously challenged. Think how assured his own spirit 
must have been, to pass through this life-long ordeal 
without sharing, in the faintest degree, the misgivings 
and distrust of the surrounding world ! Among the 
rulers and leaders of the nation, among his own kin- 
dred, on every side, there was pitying or scornful dis- 
belief. Yet he did not doubt himself! Moreover — 
and this is a point of especial significance — he made 
this belief in him the cardinal requirement, the turning- 
point, and test. His extraordinary claims and asser- 
tions respecting himself and his mission are not left 
in the background. On the contrary, they stand out 
in bold relief. Confidence in them is the one great 
demand, the first and fundamental duty which, in the 
preaching of his religion, men are called upon to per- 
form. How much do we read about belief and unbe- 
lief on the pages of the New Testament ! The same 
question was agitated then, even in the very presence 
of Christ, that is discussed now. Was he, or was he 
not, worthy of belief? Was he, indeed, sent from 
God, or did he speak of himself ? 



520 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

Now it is adapted, we cannot but feel, to make a 
strong impression on every thoughtful mind, to reflect 
that this question of believing or disbelieving in him 
was clothed, in the estimation of Christ himself, with 
all the importance that justly attaches to it. However 
vast his claim, he knew and felt how vast it was. 
Not only did he stake his all, and sacrifice all, in the 
maintenance of it, but he concentrated, so to speak, 
his whole system in it, by making the full assent to 
this claim the one foremost and essential requirement. 
"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him 
whom He hath sent" He examined his disciples as 
to the view which they took of his person and office. 
Who think ye that I am ? was his question to them. 
He was acquainted with the various theories concern- 
ing him that were entertained by his contemporaries. 
When there was everything to excite self-questioning, 
the consciousness of his divine mission was not in the 
least disturbed. Through all denial of him, under the 
frown of men in power as well as the fierce outcries 
of the fanatical mob, in view of his apparently unsuc- 
cessful career, even amidst the terrors of death, the 
consciousness of his divine mission remains a deep, 
immovable conviction. It was a conviction which 
reflection — self-knowledge — had no tendency to 
weaken. 

Self-deception, in a matter like this, is incompatible 
with the transcendent holiness and goodness of Christ. 



HOLINESS OF CHRIST. 521 

It would argue such a degree of self-ignorance and 
self-exaggeration as could spring only from a deep 
moral perversion. 

We shall not enter into an elaborate argument to 
prove the spotless character of Christ. It is enough 
to convince us of his sinless purity, that while his 
moral discernment was so penetrating and sure, and 
his ideal of character absolutely faultless, and his 
dealing with others marked by a moral fidelity so 
searching, he had yet no consciousness of sin. When 
the tempter came he found nothing in him — no province 
in his heart, no strip of territory, which he could call 
his own. The teaching of Christ presents the purest 
description of rectitude and holiness. Every man 
finds in it practical rebukes of sin — of his own sin — ■ 
which are more pointed and awful than he can find 
elsewhere. His precepts are the embodiment and ex- 
pression of a pure conscience. Yet the feeling of self- 
reproach never entered the heart of Jesus. It is im- 
possible to account for this, except on the supposition 
that he was absolutely free from sin. Without dwell- 
ing on the excellence of Christ, on that blending of 
piety and philanthropy, that union of the active virtues 
with the passive graces of character, that exquisite 
combination and harmony of virtues, we may still 
advert to one or two special features in which his per- 
fection shines out. Men who rise far above the 
common level of character are still frequently open to 
temptation from two sources, ambition and friendship. 



522 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

In each of these particulars, Jesus affords an example 
of stainless virtue. The love of power and worldly 
advancement was kept far away from his heart. He 
was proof against self-seeking in this enticing form of 
personal aspiration. Even more difficult is it to resist 
subtle temptations to yield something of truth or duty 
for the sake of friendship. But Jesus, though patient 
and tender towards all the erring, is unsparingly faith- 
ful in dealing with his most intimate disciples. There 
is no exception, no tacit indulgence, no accommodation 
of the moral standard, out of favor to them. The 
foremost of them, when he would suggest to Jesus a 
departure from the hard path of self-sacrifice, is sternly 
rebuked under the name of Adversary and Tempter. 1 
Even their resentment at injuries offered to him brings 
upon them his disapprobation. 2 He tolerates in the 
best loved, and in the seclusion of private intercourse, 
no temper of feeling which is repugnant to the prin- 
ciple of goodness. 3 

Now we aver that the holy character of Christ pre- 
cludes the possibility of a monstrous self-delusion such 

1 Matt. xvi. 23. 2 Luke ix. 55. 

3 Among the delineations of the character of Jesus, the pregnant 
aphorisms of Pascal in the Pensees have, perhaps, never been sur- 
passed. Ullinann's little work on The Sinlessness of Christ (much 
enlarged and improved in the later editions) is convincing and im- 
pressive. The Christ of History, by John Young, a Scottish writer, 
is a forcible argument on the same general subject. As an extended 
portraiture of the excellence of Christ, the chapters in Horace Bush- 
nell's Nature and the Siqier natural, on " the Character of Jesus," 
besides their eloquence, are full of instructive suggestion. 



THE HUMILITY OF JESUS. 523 

as must be attributed to him in case his claims are 
discredited. The soul is not so made as to fall a 
victim to this enormous self-deception, whilst the moral 
part is sound and pure. The principle that if the eye 
be single the whole body is full of light, is applicable 
here. There is a shield for the judgment in thorough 
moral uprightness. God has not made the intelligence 
of man to mislead him so fearfully, provided he abides 
in his integrity. The mind is a witness to the truth, 
and was made for that end. To assume that the in- 
most consciousness of a holy, unfallen soul, in the full 
communion of Gocl, is no criterion of truth, would be 
almost equivalent to supposing that the world is made 
and governed by an evil being. We found the 
credibility of the consciousness of Christ on his perfect 
goodness. 

This conclusion is fortified when we consider, in 
particular, the humility of Jesus. Notwithstanding the 
extraordinary dignity to which he lays claim, humility 
marks his whole demeanor. He is careful to keep 
within the bounds of his calling ; for himself, regarded 
apart from the relationship he sustains to God and 
from his office, he exacts nothing ; from every symptom 
of an elated mind, from every feeling of self-glorifica- 
tion, he is utterly exempt ; while, in his intercourse 
with his fellow -men of every rank, there appears a 
winning lowliness of heart. This mixture of humility 
with so lofty claims — elements seemingly incongruous, 
yet in the evangelical portraiture of Jesus so naturally 



524 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

uniting — makes his character altogether unique. As- 
serting for himself a station so exalted, he is yet the 
impersonation of self-renouncing regard for others. 
The singular humility of Christ, emanating, as it does, 
from the very core of his character, renders it well-nigh 
inconceivable that he could have been bewildered and 
blinded by a self-exalting delusion respecting his rank 
in the universe and his authority among men. Such 
an impression, if it be false, must have its roots in an 
immoderate self-estimation. Nothing short of a most 
inordinate self-love could breed a persuasion of this 
nature, if there was in truth no foundation for it. But 
if this occult misleading principle had been operative, 
other and offensive manifestations of it would have 
appeared. On the contrary, a rare humility before 
God and men is one of the striking characteristics of 
Jesus. It would seem as if he were desirous of requir- 
ing for himself the least that he could require in con- 
sistency with truth. And even this he requires, not 
from any personal love of honor or power, but rather 
in the interest of truth, and as compelled in the faith- 
ful performance of the work which it was given him to 
do. Had he been a lover of power, conspicuity, au- 
thority, rule, we might possibly account for the rise in 
his soul of a delusive sense of personal importance. 
But in one who was actuated by motives wholly antag- 
onistic, in whose eyes the doing of the humblest act 
of love was nobler than to wear a coronet, in him who 
was " meek and of a lowly heart," the existence of a 



CONFUCIUS. 525 

self-magnifying illusion of this nature is psychologically 
insoluble. 

No case analogous to that of the founder of Chris- 
tianity can be cited from the abundant records of reli- 
gious enthusiasm. It is true that multiplied examples 
of such enthusiasm exist in the past. There have been 
professed prophets and founders of religions, who have 
believed in their own pretensions, which were yet the 
offspring of a morbid imagination. But none of these, 
in respect to character and to surrounding circum- 
stances, resembles Christ, or helps us to explain his 
consciousness. There is this radical difference, that 
none of these have been exempt from the corrupting 
operation of sin. The effect of that deranging, disturb- 
ing force, has been experienced not only in the char- 
acter, its immediate seat, but also in the intelligence. 
Because they who are groping in the dark lose their 
path, it follows not that such will be the lot of him who 
walks in the day. Point us to the prophet or saint who 
can claim the unclouded vision which is the attribute of 
the unfallen soul, and we admit the parallel. But let 
us glance at some of these leaders whose names are 
sometimes flippantly coupled with the name of Jesus. 

Confucius cannot be placed in the category of reli- 
gious teachers pretending to a divine mission. He was 
simply a teacher of moral and political axioms ; enti- 
tled to credit, indeed, for certain commendable features 
in his ethical doctrine, but disclaiming any special 



526 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

knowledge of the invisible world. He laid claim to no 
higher character than that of a sage, drawing from no 
other fountain than human wisdom. Buddha was 
likewise a moral reformer, a true philanthropist, 
the propounder of humane ethical precepts. Though 
subsequently invested by his followers with a halo of 
supernatural glory, it is not ascertained that this monk 
and mystic himself claimed to be the organ of a divine 
revelation. His work, as far as it was religious, was 
chiefly negative, consisting in the deliverance of his 
followers from the slavish superstition of the brahmin- 
ical system, by denying the reality of the objects of 
their previous worship. The speculative part of his 
system was his own discovery, and was atheistic. Of 
Zoroaster too little is known to enable us to judge 
intelligently of his mental characteristics. If he 
claimed to have received communications from heaven, 
we know too little of his history to determine the shape 
and extent of this pretension. How far he was really 
infected with a mystic enthusiasm, and how far the 
supernatural elements in the traditional accounts of his 
career have sprung from the fancy of later generations, 
we are not in a situation to decide. 1 Skeptics have 
sometimes endeavored to draw a parallel between 

1 A tolerably full, arid doubtless in the main authentic, account 
of Zoroaster and Buddha, and of the wide-spread religious systems 
called respectively by their names, may be found in Duncker's 
OeschicMe des Alterthums (Vol. I.), a work which offers a consecutive 
and readable, as well as learned, exhibition of the results of modern 



APOLLONIUS : MOHAMMED. 527 

Apollonius of Tyana and the author of the Gospel. 
But the earliest life of Apollonius, the work of Philos- 
tratus, was not written until a hundred years after he 
lived, and the resemblance of his pretended miracles 
to the miracles of the Gospel is probably, for the most 
part, a designed parody of the Saviour's history. Of 
Apollonius we know little more than that he was one of 
the more famous of the roving magicians and dealers in 
the preternatural, who, in that epoch of spiritual dis- 
traction, found a ready hearing in the Roman world. 

The appeal to Mohammed, as a notable example 
of sincere but unfounded confidence in one's own 
divine mission, has been urged with more frequency 
and persistency. Happily the investigations which have 
been made into the history of the Arabian prophet, 
have furnished the explanation of his remarkable self- 
delusion. This solution is found in a great degree in 
his peculiarly morbid physical constitution. Subject 
from his youth to a form of epilepsy, and combining 
with this nervous infirmity a mystic fervor of religious 
aspiration, he conceived the impression that the extraor- 
dinary states of body and soul into which he occasion- 
ally fell, were due to the action of celestial beings, and 
at length came to consider himself the organ of a 
divine revelation. His zeal for a rigorous monotheism 
inflamed the fanaticism of his fiery temperament, and 
finally impelled him to missions of conquest ; though 

investigation in the department of oriental history. It is understood 
that the more recent researches into the Zoroastrian system yield 
important fruit. 



528 CltEDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

it seems to be admitted that after his establishment at 
Medina, and with his advancing success, he lost much 
of the comparative sincerity and singleness of his 
motives. A large alloy of base ambition became min- 
gled up with the enthusiasm of the zealot. In the case 
of Mohammed, there were present all the materials 
which are needful for the composition of an enthusiast. 
His hot blood, his morbid temperament, his inward 
yearnings and conflicts, the seasons of hallucination 
through which he passed, his solitary vigils and self- 
mortification, are sufficient to explain the origin of the 
delusion which gained possession of his mind. 1 

1 The best biography of Mohammed is the late work of Dr. 
Sprenger, who has had the command of wider materials than were 
before accessible. He describes with much fulness the maladies to 
which Mohammed was subject. In the portions of this copious work 
which we have read, the author makes the impression of great 
knowledge on the subject, but of small literary skill, with a tendency 
to prolixness. The English biography of Mohammed, in best repute, 
is the recent work of Mr. Muir. In one of his articles in the Calcutta 
Review (which are incorporated into his subsequent work), Muir 
discusses " the Belief of Mohammed in his own Inspiration." He 
traces with plausibility the psychological origin of this belief. 
" How far," says Muir, "the two ideas of a Resolution subjectively 
formed, and involving a spontaneous course of action, and of a 
Divine Inspiration objectively imparted and independent of his own 
will, were at first simultaneously present, and in what respective 
degrees, it is difficult to conjecture. But it is certain that the con- 
ception of a divine commission soon took entire and undivided pos- 
session of his soul ; and, colored though it often was by the motions 
and inducements of the day, or mingled with apparently incongruous 
desires, retained a paramount influence until the hour of his death." 
(P. 320.) Of Mohammed at Medina, Muir says (p. 330) : "Ambition, 



PYTHAGORAS : SOCRATES. 529 

But there were men, we are sometimes told, in the 
ancient world, of another make and of a different order 
of mind from this, who were yet believed by themselves 
to be charged with a divine mission. Pythagoras was 
one. Unfortunately, the earliest extant biographers of 
Pythagoras, Porphyry and his pupil, Jamblichus, did 
not write until seven or eight hundred years after the 
philosopher whom they commemorate, flourished ; and 
the best of the biographers whom they cite date no 
further back than about two centuries after their mas- 
ter's death. In the absence of contemporary witnesses, 
the knowledge we possess both of the mental and 
moral character, and the pretensions, of Pythagoras, 
is scanty and, to a considerable extent, inferential. It 
would be nothing strange if a man like him, at that 
time, imagined that natural gifts of knowledge were 
imparted to him by a special inspiration of the divinity. 
It is difficult to see how anything can be gathered un- 
favorable to the claims of Christ, from the example of 
a heathen mystic so indistinctly known, and standing, 
withal, at the dawning period of scientific thought. 

There is, however, one man of antiquity, who, in 
some other respects, has not unfrequently been set in 
comparison with Jesus, and the conjunction of whose 
name with that of Christ may give a less shock to 
reverential feeling. Yet, in the points in which the 

rapine, assassination, Inst, are undenied features of his later life, 
openly sanctioned by an assumed permission, or even command, from 
the Most High ! " 
34 



530 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

position of Socrates is more usually compared with 
that of Christ, Socrates is better likened to the fore- 
runner of Christ; as, indeed, he was styled by the 
Platonist of Florence, Marsilius Ficinus, the John the 
Baptist of the ancient world. The Socratic philosophy 
prepared many noble minds for the reception of the 
gospel, by its congenial tone, and by the cravings which 
it awakened but failed to satisfy. 

But Socrates believed himself to have been entrusted 
with a divine mission, and believed that he enjoyed an 
inward supernatural guidance. We are quite willing 
to consider this persuasion on the part of the greatest 
man of the ancient heathen world, for the reason that 
a careful consideration of the character of this belief 
of Socrates and of the nature of his pretensions gen- 
erally, will serve to corroborate strongly the argument 
which has been presented on the foregoing pages. 

Socrates, like all the Greeks of the time, save indi- 
viduals here and there who may have disbelieved in 
anything divine, thought that the gods made known 
their counsels through the medium of dreams and 
oracles. This will be called a superstition. So, he 
thought that the study of physical science, when car- 
ried beyond the small stock of knowledge indispen- 
sable for the practical pursuits of life, was an impiety 
■ — a meddling with what belonged to the gods. This, 
too, was a superstition. Such views simply indicate 
that we are not to look, even in Socrates, for a miracu- 
lous degree of enlightenment. But we are concerned 



SOCRATES. 531 

here with the view which he took of himself and his 
mission. And here it is to be observed that in refer- 
ence to the opportunity of being taught by dream and 
oracle, and the like, he claimed nothing more for him- 
self than what he attributed to others. In this matter 
all stood on the same footing. The gods heard 
prayer, he held, and gave answer in these ways. In 
respect to the work to which he devoted himself, 
the verdict of the Delphian oracle in favor of his pre- 
eminent wisdom doubtless had an important influence 
in leading him to the career which he embraced of a 
public interrogator and exposer of pretended knowledge, 
and teacher of such as cared to learn of him. And 
this work he considered a calling, in the literal sense, 
which he was not at liberty to forsake. He supposed, 
also, that an inward monitor, whose restraining impulse 
he experienced on various occasions, was given him 
to hold him back from a mistaken or injurious course 
of action. For the office of the demon, according to 
what must be considered the statement of Socrates 
himself, in the Apology, was negative — never suggest- 
ing what to do, but simply, on occasions, interposing 
resistance to stay him from unwise action. 1 Now, it 

1 Apologia, c. xix. Socrates says of the inward voice : del ano~ 

Tperrei /ze tovtov, o av /le'XXo) Trpdrreiv, 7rporpeVei 8e ovnore. Compare, 

also, c. xxxi., where Socrates says that through all the legal proceed- 
ings in his case, the voice in his soul had interposed no check to the 
course he was taking, and where he defines the function of the 
supernatural Monitor in the same way. The representations of 
Xenophon in the Memorabilia (I. 1, 4, et al.), as is well known, are 



532 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

may be held, that this supposed demon was the intui- 
tive moral impulse of Socrates himself, which, in the 
promptitude of its action, struck him as the voice of 
another in his soul • or, in common with some of the 
Christian Fathers, and with others whom it were harsh 
to tax with credulity, we may even suppose that super- 
natural enlightenment was not withheld from this man 
by the Being before whom those in every nation who 
fear Him — even though their knowledge of Him be 
imperfect — and work righteousness, are accepted. 

But when we look at the claims of Socrates respecting 
himself, we find that he is far from assuming preemi- 
nence or authority. It is true that he considered his 
work an important one, and himself not a harmful but 
a needed and useful citizen. But this was the limit 
of his pretensions. He distinguished himself from 
other men, not through any superiority of knowledge 
which he thought himself to possess, but through that 
consciousness of ignorance which belonged to him and 
which they lacked. He, like them, knew nothing, 
but, unlike them, he knew that he knew nothing. He 
asserted for himself no greater knowledge, and no 
more certainty of knowledge respecting the future life, 
than other men had. He claimed to exercise no au- 
thority over the opinions or the conduct of others. If 

less accurate ; and those contained in the Theages (like the work 
itself) come not from Plato. Yet in this Dialogue it is stated, in 
conformity with the Apology, that the demon only forbids, never 
instigates. 



SOCRATES. 533 

the demon negatively guided him, he received thereby 
no authority or wisdom for the control of other men. 
He was simply a man among men ; a humble searcher 
for truth ; pretending to the exertion of no authority 
save that which was willingly accorded to the force of 
his reasonings. In fact, a principal charm of Socrates 
is his humble sense of the narrow boundaries of human 
knowledge, and his waiting for more light. 

Let us now change the picture which history pre- 
sents of this remarkable man. Let us suppose that 
Socrates had claimed to be invested with all power in 
heaven and on earth, had required the acceptance of 
his doctrines on his mere authority, had demanded of 
all men an implicit obedience to his will, had styled 
himself the lord and master of his disciples, had 
assumed to pardon impiety and transgression, had pro- 
fessed an ability to allot to men their everlasting desti- 
nies, besides delivering them from the bonds of death, 
and had declared himself to be the constituted judge 
in the future world of the entire race of man. The 
question we put is, whether assumptions of this char- 
acter, notwithstanding acknowledged virtues of Socrates, 
would not evince either a demented understanding or 
an ingrained, monstrous self-love and self-exaggeration, 
only to be explained on the supposition of a deep 
moral perversion ? Should we not be driven to con- 
clude that claims so extravagant and presumptuous in 
a sane mind imply that character is off its true foun- 
dations ? How else could self-deception and self-exalta- 



534 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

tion reach this height ? And would not complacency 
for certain traits and actions of Socrates be lost in the 
repugnance we should feel for this arrogancy of pre- 
tension ? An enthusiast is ordinarily looked upon with 
compassion by sober minds. But when enthusiasm 
leaps so high, and leads to the usurping of a rank far 
beyond the allowance of truth and the moral law, it 
inspires a feeling of moral aversion. 

Had Jesus stood forth simply in the character of a 
promulgator of some high, and, perhaps, forgotten 
truth in theology or morals, with which his whole 
being was penetrated, we might look upon the mis- 
taken belief in a supernatural mission with a less 
unfavorable judgment. It is conceivable that the 
light which flashes on the intelligence should be 
wrongly attributed to a supernatural source, that the 
intuition should be taken for miraculous revelation, 
and that a glowing, absorbing conviction should be 
held to come from above in a supernatural way. Such, 
we should be willing to grant, was the principal source 
of Mohammed's original faith in his own inspiration. 
The feebly recognized truth of the sovereign control 
in this world of one almighty will came home to his 
soul with a vividness which nothing, in his view, but 
preternatural influence could account for. In this, or 
some similar way, a man comes to recognize himself 
as the chosen repository of a great, vital truth, and 
the chosen instrument for propagating it. And such a 
conviction is even consistent with humility, so long as 



CHRIST NOT SELF-DECEIVED 535 

the truth is kept uppermost and the function of the 
prophet is felt by himself to be merely subordinate and 
ministerial. Nay, the very contrast between the sub- 
limity of the truth of which he has been made the 
recipient, and his own poor merits, may intensify the 
feeling of personal unworthiness. The prophet or saint 
feels abashed at being made the channel for conveying 
the divine communication. It is true that pride ever 
stands near, and self-flattery and arrogance gain easy 
admission. The humility is apt to be retained only in 
semblance, while it is really supplanted by a principle 
wholly antagonistic. Still more important is it to 
remember that even this sort of self-deception belongs 
to men who, whatever may be thought of their earnest- 
ness and relative excellence, partake of the sinfulness 
of humanity. If they fall into the error of supposing 
that they are specially chosen agents of heaven when 
they are not, this is among the delusions which are due 
to the darkening influence of the sin that is common 
to mankind. Apart from this consideration, there was, 
in fact, no one idea of religion to which the mind of 
Jesus was surrendered, and in which he was swallowed 
up. The fertility, the variety, the consistency, and 
symmetry of his teaching, not less than its whole tone 
and temper, forbid this hypothesis respecting him. 
But the decisive answer to the suggestion that he was 
an enthusiast of this description is gathered from what 
was said in the beginning of the extent of his claims. 
These claims are far from being satisfied when he is 



536 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OE JESUS. 

looked upon as the simple repository and organ of 
a divine communication. His exalted claims, then, in 
case they are not allowed, must be credited to the self- 
seeking which corrupts the simplicity of the enthusiast, 
and moves him to put himself before his truth. 
Pride and ambition, however hidden and subtle in their 
working, are at the root of this gross, unwarranted 
self-elevation. 

We are brought back to the dilemma which was 
proposed in the earlier part of this discussion. The 
unbelief of the time professes to reject all claims of a 
supernatural sort which were put forward by Jesus, at 
the same time that it loudly professes admiration for 
his personal excellence. It is true that Renan throws 
out the suggestion that he was guilty of a tacit concur- 
rence in pious frauds ; but, as far as we know, Renan 
stands alone in a view which is repugnant to the 
common sense of every sober-minded student, whether 
infidel or believing, of the evangelical history. And 
even Renan allows that Jesus had full faith in his own 
Messiahship. Infidelity must take the ground, and, 
at the present day, almost universally does take the 
ground, that Jesus was a religious enthusiast. His 
ethical system and, perhaps, a part of his religious 
teaching, are praised, but his distinctive claim to be 
the Messiah of God is rejected as decidedly as it was 
by the Jewish elders who crucified him. As if to 
make up for this dishonor put upon his pretensions, 
abundant laudation is bestowed, as we have said, upon 



INCONSISTENCY OF SKEPTICS. 537 

the character of Jesus. Skeptical writers of the present 
day have much to say of the fine balance and equipoise 
of his faculties. Even Strauss, in his latest work, 
pays homage to the harmony of his nature. But these 
writers frequently go farther ; they describe him as the 
embodiment of whatever is pure and good, the highest 
exemplar of moral excellence. 

We deny the consistency of their position. We 
deny the justice of this judgment concerning Jesus, if, 
indeed, as they tell us, his extraordinary claims were 
founded in illusion. We are obliged with all solemnity 
to affirm, that the indulgence of the thought that these 
awful claims were the fruit of self-deception, carries 
along with it, as a necessary consequence, a feeling 
towards Jesus quite opposed to the reverence and 
abundant admiration which they are still disposed to 
lavish upon him. In other words, the cherishing of a 
delusion of this character is incompatible with that 
moral soundness, that clear and thorough truth of 
character, the lack of which debars one from being the 
legitimate object of such reverence and admiration. 
In short, the skeptical view of the claims of Christ 
strikes indirectly, but with equal effect, at his character. 
It is impossible to stop with attributing to him the 
weakness of an enthusiast. Such a delusion, though 
it be unconscious, can have no other ultimate source 
than moral infirmity. That profound truth of char- 
acter, which ensures self-knowledge, clarifies the intel- 
lect, and keeps a moral being in his own place, can no 



538 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. 

longer be supposed. A sentiment of mislike — of aver- 
sion — must take the place of moral reverence. In 
ordinary life, any one who dreams himself entitled to 
more of honor and deference than belongs to him, and 
more of control than he has a right to exert, excites a 
natural disesteem. Men divine that false pretensions, 
even when they are unconsciously false, spring from 
some occult fault of character. And when claims are 
mistakenly put forth which would lift the subject of 
them to a higher than earthly pinnacle of dignity and 
power, the same verdict, with proportionally augmented 
emphasis, must follow. 

The supernatural claims of Jesus are thus identified 
with the excellence of his character. Both stand or 
fall together. Trust in him has a warrant in his trans- 
cendent goodness. He could not be self-deceived, 
and therefore his testimony respecting himself is 
credible. He who lived and died for the truth was 
not himself enslaved by a stupendous falsehood. But 
respecting himself, not less than in respect to the other 
great themes of his teaching, he saw and uttered the 
truth. " To this end," he said, " was I born, and for 
this cause came I into the world, that I should bear 
witness unto the truth. He that is of the truth 
heareth my voice." 



ESSAY XIII. 

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD : IN EEPLY TO THE POSI- 
TIYIST AND THE PANTHEIST. 

The truth of the Personality of God is impugned, 
in these days, by two diverse and mutually repugnant 
systems, Positivism and Pantheism. Agreeing in this 
negation, they stand at a world-wide remove from one 
another, as to the grounds on which it is based. 
Positivism is hardly to be called a Philosophy unless 
we abandon the ancient and proper sense of this much 
abused term. 1 It rather disdains philosophy, in the 
usual acceptation of the word, as a fictitious and now 
obsolete phenomenon in the progress of thought. It 
cannot be denied that M. Compte has displayed con- 
siderable ingenuity in framing his classification of the 
Sciences, though in this task he is far from being 
without rivals to dispute with him the palm of merit, 
if not of originality ; and so far as his classification of 
the objects of science ascends above unintelligent 
nature and draws in men and society, it is open to 
the essential objections which lie against his system in 
general. Man, as an individual, is placed under the 

1 See Hamilton's Metaphysics (Am. Ed.), p. 45. 



540 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

head of Physiology ; and if the social man is honored 
with a separate rubric, no better reason is assigned 
than that every animal develops a distinct set of 
qualities in intercourse with his kind. Mental philoso- 
phy, in its recognized ends and methods of obtaining 
them, Compte not only casts out of his scheme, but 
treats with scorn as a pretender to the name of science. 
The old and often refuted pretension, by which the 
impossibility of Psychology is sought to be demon- 
strated, that the introspective act of consciousness puts 
a stop to the mental operation which consciousness 
would observe, Compte parades anew with the air of 
a discoverer. He acknowledges, in his principal work, 
that he has not read Kant, Hegel, and other great 
modern writers in the field of Metaphysics. 1 The great 
business of the human intellect, according to Positivism, 
is to observe facts and to register them by the rules of 
chronological sequence and of similarity. That false 
imaginations are not to be suffered to cloud the mind 
of the inquirer, so as to hinder him from a full and 
unprejudiced investigation of the phenomena presented 
to experience, is in truth a legitimate lesson of the 
Baconian system, and of high practical importance, 
especially in the physical sciences. Nor is Positivism 
to be denied the merit of having brought prominently 
forward this valuable truth. The mischief is that this 
truth is presented in both an exaggerated and one- 
sided form. For even in physical studies the inquirer 

1 Cours de Philosopliie Positive, T. I. p. xxxvi. 



PHILOSOPHY OF COMPTE. 541 

is piloted by that scientific imagination which awakens 
hypotheses for observation to test ; and in spite of the 
Positivist scorn of theories, it was in the light of 
theories which were conjectural until observation had 
established them, that some of the finest discoveries, 
in Astronomy and Chemistry, for example, were made. 
By means of Hypothesis, the explorer has carried a 
torch before him to light him on his path. Of this 
fact, ignored by the Positivist school, Whewell has 
given some noteworthy illustrations. But the Positiv- 
ist is generally one-sided in the application of his 
favorite maxim. There are phenomena in the moral, 
religious, and aesthetic experience of man which are 
undeniable, and which are, as they have always been, 
most potent in their influence, which yet are tacitly 
ruled out of the realm of truth acknowledged by the 
votaries of this school. If we are to be confined to 
the observation of facts, let not that observation be 
narrowed down to that single class of phenomena of 
which the senses take cognizance. Otherwise Posi- 
tivism is nothing better than materialism under a less 
odious name. 

But the fatal defect in Compte's handling of the 
axiom to which we have adverted, and the vice, at the 
same time, of his whole system, is his denial of efficient 
and final causes. 1 The universe is the sequence of 

1 Phil. Positiv., T. I. p. 14, and passim. J. S. Mill states (West- 
minster Keview, April, 1865), that Conipte does not deny the exist- 
ence of causes beyond phenomenal antecedents, but that he simply 



542 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

phenomena which are connected, as far as we know, by 
no causative agency, and related to no intelligible 
ends. The felicity of him who explores into the causes 
of things, which has heretofore been deemed his 
strongest incentive and best reward, is no more to be 

affirms that they are inaccessible to us. Compte's language is that 
the Positive Philosophy considers, " comme absolu-ment inaccessible 
et vide de sens pour nous la recherche de ce qu'on appelle les causes, 
soit premieres, soit finales." But the question is whether there be 
causation — causative agency — dependence of one thing on another, 
such as invariable sequence, or, to adopt Mill's improved formula, 
" unconditional invariable sequence," does not express. On this 
point, all the language of both Compte and Mill seems to imply a 
negative answer. The inquiry into causes Compte abandons "a 
Timagination des theologiens, ou aux subtilites des metaphysiciens." 
Philosophy knows of nothing but sequences of phenomena. Mill, in 
his Logic, notwithstanding his general disclaimer, constantly implies 
that the belief in causation (beyond stated sequence) is without 
scientific warrant. "Kothing," he says, "can better show the 
absence of any scientific ground for the distinction between the cause 
of a phenomenon and its conditions than," etc., (Mill's Logic, B. II. 
c. v.). " Force " and "attraction " (the former, as well as the latter) 
applied to the earth, he pronounces logical fictions. He declares 
that the relations of succession and similarity among phenomena are 
the only subject of rational investigation. He protests (c. xxi) against 
taking necessity of thinking as a criterion of reality. Events, he 
thinks, may be conceived of as occurring at random. The law of 
causation is a generalization by simple enumeration. In distant parts 
of the stellar system, he says, the law of causation (uniformity) may 
not prevail. If we remember right, he derides the notion of " a 
mysterious tie" between the cause (antecedent) and consequent. 

The essential question is whether there be such a thing as 
efficiency, and whether this is the peculiar property of a cause in the 
strict sense of the term. And on this question, Mill's position is 
sufficiently clear. His theory has little advantage over that of 
Hume. 






THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSATION. 543 

looked for. He may find out what is, but must abjure 
the thought of seeing a rationality in what is. 1 Now 
as far as the first point in the Positivist skepticism is 
concerned, the denial of the validity of the principle 
of causation is the rejection of one of the necessary 
deliverances of the human mind. We are under the 
necessity of thinking that every change is mediated 
by the exertion of power, is connected with a force or 
agency existing in its antecedents. If the necessity of 
thought is not to be accepted here as the criterion of 
truth, then Compte has nothing on which to rest his 
faith in the reality of the external world. The alterna- 
tive, in fact, is universal skepticism. Now, that our 
belief in efficient causation is necessary, can be made 
plain. Let any one suppose an absolute void, where 
nothing exists. He, in this case, not only cannot 
think of anything beginning to be, but he knows that 
no existence could come into being. He affirms this 
■ — every man in the right use of reason affirms it — with 
the same necessity with which he affirms the impos- 
sibility that a thing should be, and not be, contem- 
poraneously. The opposite, in both cases, is not only 
untrue, but inconceivable — contradictory to reason. 

1 Compte admits that besides the practical and economic use of 
positive science, there is a higher advantage from it. We are under 
the necessity of having some arrangement of facts — for example, to 
escape the painful feeling of astonishment which a disconnected 
phenomenon produces, and to keep off metaphysics and theology ! 
This verily reduces the ideal interest of scientific study to a 
minimum. See Phil. Positiv., T. I. pp. 63, 64. 



544 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

Such is the foundation of the principle, ex niltilo nihil 
fit. But if a phenomenon is wholly disconnected from 
its antecedents, if there be no shadow of a causal 
nexus between it and them, we may think them away, 
and then we have left to us a perfectly isolated event, 
with nothing before it. In other words, it is just as 
impossible to think of a phenomenon which stands in 
no causal connection with anything before it, as it is 
to think of an event, or even of a universe, in the act 
of springing into being put of nothing. Futile is the 
attempt to empty the mind of the principle of efficient 
causation ; and were it successful, its triumph would 
involve the overthrow of all assured knowledge, 
because it would be secured at the cost of discrediting 
our native and necessary convictions. 

Not less ill-founded is the Positivist opposition to 
the doctrine of Pinal Causes. One may cavil at par- 
ticular forms of statement in which this doctrine has 
been embodied ; but that, in the various kingdoms of 
Nature, there is a selection of means with reference to 
ends, is a truth which is irresistibly suggested to the 
simplest as well as the wisest ; as the reception of it 
by mankind, in all nations and ages, sufficiently attests. 
Speculation cannot dislodge this conviction from the 
human mind, for it will return again with every fresh 
view of the objects of nature. It has been the clue, as 
is well known, to important discoveries, for instance in 
Animal Physiology. The use of a given organ, its fit- 
ness to an end, its perceived office in a system, has en- 



compte's philosophy. 545 

abled the naturalist to anticipate observation and com- 
plete the fragmentary animal structure. Witness the 
remarkable discoveries of Cuvier. Of the place of the 
doctrine of Final Causes in the argument for Theism 
we shall speak hereafter. Here we simply affirm that 
the fact of a singular adaptedness of means to ends, 
such as cannot be fortuitous, but must be the fruit of 
selection, is established by universal observation, and 
is not shaken by any arguments from the Positivist 
side. What inference we are authorized to make as 
to the being of God, is a question reserved for a sub- 
sequent part of this Essay. 

Compte's well-known description of the stages of 
human progress, of which the first is the Mythological, 
the next the Metaphysical, and the last the Positivist, 1 
though at the first sight it strikes one as ingenious, 
will not bear the historical test, and is moreover 
vitiated by an underlying fallacy. There is no proof 
that the principal nations of the Indo-germanic and 
the Semitic stocks ever practised fetish-worship, or 
were ever enslaved by the lowest types of mythological 
religion, or ascended from them to somewhat higher. 
All the proof is the other way. There is no proof that 
mankind were originally on the lowest stage of relig- 
ious knowledge and feeling. Apart from revelation 
even, the hypothesis of a fall and degradation from a 
primitive state which was morally more elevated, is 
equally rational, and, in our judgment, far better sus- 

i Phil. Positiv., T. I. p. 3 seq. and Tome v. 
35 



546 THE PERSONALITY. OP GOD. 

tained, than the supposition of a gradual ascent from 
a moral and spiritual life little superior to that of the 
brutes. The phenomena of conscience, which the 
philosopher has no right to overlook, sustain the Chris- 
tian hypothesis and are incompatible with its opposite, 
while the existence of a law of progress, such as the 
anti-Christian theory assumes, cannot be inductively 
established, but is rather disproved by the facts of 
history and observation. Compte's imaginary law of 
succession is inconsistent also with facts in one other 
particular. The three eras, to use his own phraseology, 
the Mythological in which personal deities are believed 
in, the Philosophical in which notions, such as essence, 
cause, and the like, are substituted for them, and the 
Positivist or the era of facts, are not found to succeed 
each other in this fixed order. Compte allows, to be 
sure, that one may overlap the other • but this conces- 
sion falls far short of the truth. Who will venture to 
affirm that a metaphysician like Hegel belongs in an 
earlier era of intellectual progress than his contem- 
porary, Compte ? In the case of the former, there is 
not only the supposed advantage of living in the same 
advanced period with the latter, but of being immense- 
ly superior in mental power and in the range of his 
acquisitions. Who will affirm that Kepler and New- 
ton believed in God, either for the reason that Positiv- 
ism had not been announced, or because they were 
too unphilosophical to receive it? Skepticism and 
disbelief in the supernatural are not peculiar to 



COMPTERS PHILOSOPHY. 547 

modern times. They have appeared and re-appeared 
in the world's history ever since men began to specu- 
late. This generalization of Compte is, therefore, 
hasty and incorrect. 

But a most glaring error connected with this 
theory of Compte is the assumption that the mytholo- 
gies sprung from the scientific or intellectual motive. 
The mythological epoch is pronounced the earliest 
effort of the human mind to explain the changes occur- 
ring in nature. The religious motive, the instinct of 
worship, the yearning for the supernatural and divine, 
is for the most part, or wholly, left out of the account. 
How strangely superficial this view of the religions of 
the world is, no thoughtful scholar needs to be told. 
As if religion, with all its tremendous power in human 
feeling and human affairs, were simply a form of knowl- 
edge, the crude offspring of curiosity ! Were the 
Positivist to look deeper into human nature and his- 
tory, he would see that religion, even in the perverse 
and corrupt forms of it, rests on other foundations; 
and this perception would uncover the groundlessness 
of his whole hypothesis. For if the religions of the 
heathen have their root in the constitution of the soul, 
and spring from ineradicable principles in our nature, 
it follows that, although they may pass away, religion 
will not cease, but will survive this wild outgrowth, 
in a life undying as the soul itself. The advancement 
of science has no more tendency to extirpate religion 
than it has to extirpate morality. A better under- 



548 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

standing of nature may enlighten religion and tend to 
purify it from certain errors, but to destroy it — never. 
One might as well contend that the progress of Art 
tends to annihilate the sense of beauty, or that clearer 
and truer conceptions of the family relation tend to 
eradicate the domestic affections. 

Positivism is Atheism. It would bind human 
knowledge down to a bare registry of facts, and 
chiefly to facts which the senses observe and arith- 
metic calculates. Other facts, the most real, the most 
precious, and the most influential upon human happi- 
ness and human destiny, it scornfully throws aside. 
Instead of offering an answer to the great problems 
which we cannot banish from thought without a con- 
scious abasement of our nature and a choice of indif- 
ference and torpor instead of a noble disquiet, this 
system bids us cast them away as unpractical and 
fictitious. If Paganism be, as Positivism asserts, the 
lower plane of knowledge, one may still be pardoned 
for preferring to stand upon it, and for exclaiming, in 
view of a system so unsatisfying as this 

— " I'd rather be 
A Pagan, suckled in a creed outworn, 

So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, 
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn ; 

Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea, 
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn." 

More fascinating to a mind of a speculative cast, 
because more rich in contents and more coherent and 



PANTHEISM DEFINED. 549 

self-consistent in form, are the later systems of Panthe- 
ism. Pantheism, negatively defined in its relation to 
religion, is the denial of the Personality of God. 
Pantheism is the doctrine that God is synonymous 
with the totality of things, and attains to self-con- 
sciousness only in the finite consciousness of men. It 
is the doctrine that all things are the forms, or mani- 
festations, or developments of one being or essence. 
That being is termed God. Monism, or the identify- 
ing of the world as to its substance with God, is the 
defining characteristic of Pantheism. 

Philosophy early started in quest of a common 
ground or essence of all existence. Ancient systems, 
one after another, suggested their crude solutions of 
the problem. The Pythagoreans, for instance, were 
disposed to find the groundwork of all being, or the 
one originant and pervading principle, in numbers. 
These early theories which are so fully handled in the 
great work of Cudworth, as well as by later historians 
of philosophy, we have no call at present to examine. 
The founder of modern Pantheism was Spinoza. 
Assuming the monistic doctrine, he laid down the 
proposition that the one and simple substance is 
known to us through the two Attributes of infinite 
thought and infinite extension. Neither of these 
Attributes implies personality, the essential elements 
of which are denied to the Substance. 1 The latter is 

1 In the interpretation of Spinoza's system, the difficult point is 
the relation of the Attributes to the Substance. Does he mean that 



t 

550 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

self-operative, according to an inward necessity, with- 
out choice or reference to ends. All finite existences, 
whether material or mental, are merely phenomenal. 
Spinoza also laid down the famous axiom : omnis 
determinatio est negatio ; or all predication is limita- 
tion. To attach predicates or qualities is to reduce to 
finitude. In this notion, whether consciously or not, 
Spinoza was following in the track of Christian 
theology itself, which, as represented by Augustin and 
other Platonic theologians, had claimed that Deity is 
exalted above the distinction of essence and attribute. 
Some had even maintained that God is hyperousian, 
or that the term essence or substance is inappro- 
priately applied to the Being who is truly Ineffable. 
It need not be said that, with the exception of that 
anomalous product of the eighth century and marvel 
in the history of philosophy, John Scotus, theology 
had never organized itself into Pantheism, from which 

these Attributes belong objectively to the Substance, or are they 
only relative to the intellect of the individual beholding it ? The 
last is the more usual interpretation of Spinoza. So says Erdmann, 
Geschichte der Neuern Phil, I. (2) 59 seq. ; Eitter, Geschiclite der 
Christ. Phil., vii. 224 ; Ulrici, Geschichte der Neuern Phil., I. 44 seq. ; 
Schwegler, Geschichte der Phil., s. 107, and other critics. The oppo- 
site interpretation is upheld by another class of writers. Passages 
favoring the former opinion may be quoted from Epistles of Spinoza, 
especially Ep. xxvii. It also harmonizes better with the maxim, 
omnis determinatio, etc. The second interpretation, however, better 
accords with the mathematical character which Spinoza endeavors 
to give to his system, in the Ethics. In whatever way this question 
may be decided, it is plain to all that the " infinite thought " which 
is attributed to the Substance excludes self-consciousness and choice. 



SYSTEM OF SPINOZA. '551 

all the great teachers of the Church would have shrunk 
with horror. Their object in these statements was to 
elevate God to the greatest imaginable height by 
affirming His incomprehensible nature. The system 
of Spinoza is built up, with an attempt at mathemati- 
cal demonstration, on the primary assumption respect- 
ing the one and simple substance — the una et unica 
substantia. Of course, the personality of God, a 
supernatural Providence, miracles in the proper sense, 
and Revelation, are given up. Of the effect of the 
Spinozistic system upon the conception of moral liberty 
and responsibility, we shall speak hereafter. 

Although Spinoza borrowed his definition of sub- 
stance from Des Cartes, he is original in the main 
features of his scheme. He is the forerunner of the 
later German systems, as some of their leading repre- 
sentatives, including Hegel, have allowed. Yet these 
systems would not have arisen, but for the impulse 
communicated from an intervening thinker, himself 
a firm believer in the principles of theism, the foremost 
philosopher of modern times, Immanuel Kant. In 
undertaking to criticise the knowing power, and to 
determine how far knowledge is a product of the sub- 
jective factor, a resultant from the operation of the 
mind itself, Kant took hold of a great problem of 
philosophy. He set out to dissect knowledge, and to 
separate its constituent elements according to their 
origin whether subjective or objective. This involved 
an inquiry into the nature of things — the nature of 



552 THE PERSONALITY OP GOD. 

being — the object as well as the subject of knowledge. 
The question to be determined was, what is given to 
the knowing organ and exists independently of it, and 
what does this organ itself contribute. The conclusion 
of the theoretical philosophy was that we are assured 
of nothing save the bare existence of the object which 
sets in motion the mechanism of thought. All else 
that constitutes knowledge is of subjective origin. 
Space and time are a priori forms of sensuous intuition 
■ — the frame in which objects are set by the perceiving 
subject. The so-called categories — substance and acci- 
dent, cause and effect, and the rest — are the a priori 
forms of the judging faculty, a description of the 
nature of the understanding, not of the nature of 
things. The ideas of Reason, the ultimate concep- 
tions presupposed in the three forms of logical judg- 
ment, or the three phases of the unconditioned — 
namely, the Soul as a thinking substance, the World 
as a whole, and God, the highest condition of the 
possibility of all things — are only the rubrics under 
which the categories are reduced to unity. Not 
having an empirical, but an a priori, origin, they do 
not admit of an application to external objects, nor 
can they be assumed to represent realities ; and if this 
be done, the antinomies, or logical contradictions, that 
inevitably result, warn us that Reason is out of its 
province, and that the undertaking is illegitimate. The 
objective factor was thus reduced to a minimum. In 
this department of his philosophy Kant stopped only 



KANT AND ¥ICHTE. 553 

one step short of universal skepticism. For of what 
avail that a-priori truth is supported, against Hume, 
by the criteria of universality and necessity, if this 
truth is after all endued with no objective validity ? 
Of what value is a subjective certainty which simply 
reveals a law of thought, but contains no assurance of 
a corresponding law of things ? The practical philoso- 
phy of Kant rescued his system from the consequences 
so fatal to religion. But the theoretical philosophy 
was the starting-point of the subsequent systems. 

Fichte took the short step which Kant steadfastly 
refused to take. He drew the object itself, whose 
bare existence was all that is known concerning it, 
within the subjective sphere. If the object is assumed 
merely as a cause to account for states of consciousness, 
while the principle of causation is itself purely subjec- 
tive, merely a law or mould of thought, then Idealism 
seemed to be logically inferred. 

The Idealism of Fichte evolves the external world 
(so called) from the thinking subject. All things which 
constitute the objects of thought are modifications of 
consciousness which are wholly due to the self-activity 
of the subject. The impression of externality results 
from the check put upon this self-activity by its own 
inward law. It is not, however, from the particular, 
individual ego, that all existence thus issues forth, 
but rather from the absolute, impersonal Ego, which 
evolves at the same time the individual subject, and 
the object which is inseparably related to it. The 



554 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

relativity of consciousness, in which the ego and the 
object of thought stand in correlation, belongs to the 
finite subject, and not to the Absolute Being ; yet the 
Absolute is viewed as a subject and denominated the 
Ego. 1 

Schelling modified Fichte's conception of the Abso- 
lute. The Absolute, the root of all particular exist- 
ences, is no more to be called subject than object. 
It belongs equally to the thinker and the thing. In 
truth, it lies equidistant from both poles of con- 
sciousness, the subjective and the objective. It is 
the indifference-point between them. That is to 
say, both the external world and the percipient 
subject are identical in essence and in origin. They 
flow from the same fountain, which is the absolute, 
impersonal being. Connected with this view, was 
Schelling's dynamical conception of Nature. Nature 
is made up of forces. Nature is pervaded through 
and through with rationality. For this reason, it is 
possible for Nature to be an object of knowledge. The 
mind and Nature are bound to each other by the 
closest affinities. The knowledge of Nature is Nature 
itself attaining to self-consciousness. For knowing is 
a form of being — of the identical being of which Nature 
is a lower expression. But how to cognize the hypo- 
thetical Absolute ? Relation and dependence cleave 
inseparably to conscious thought, and the thinking sub- 

1 The different phases or modifications of Fichte's system we do 
not here attempt to describe. 



SCHELLING AND HEGEL. 555 

ject can escape from itself — get behind itself — only by 
abolishing thought. But this does not secure the 
end, for the cessation of thought is not the cognition 
of the Absolute. Hence Schelling supposed a pecu- 
liar organ of Intellectual Intuition, by which the soul, 
freeing itself from the ordinary bonds of consciousness, 
gains a direct vision of the Absolute. He took refuge 
in a mystical theory, which reminds us of Plotinus. 

It is no wonder that the rigorous intellect of Hegel 
was dissatisfied with this mode of bridging the gulf 
between finite and infinite being. Accepting the 
general notion of the Absolute, as defined by Schelling, 
Hegel professed to set forth the process in which the 
entire universe is necessarily evolved. Thought and 
being are identical : hence the universe, including 
God, nature, self, is resolved into a thought-process, 
or a chain of concepts self-evolved through an inward 
necessity, and comprising and exhausting in themselves 
all reality. Indeterminate being, the notion first in 
order, necessary and self-supported, implies, or, accord- 
ing to the Hegelian language, changes into, another 
notion, and the two in turn are merged in a third 
which is more specific than either ; and so the process 
goes forward until all concrete existences take their 
places in the series of concepts. To the philosophic 
eye all reality is summed up in this realm of concepts. 
But the philosophic view is the last stage in the 
development of consciousness. It is interesting to 
inquire what account Hegel gives of sense-perceptions 



556 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

as they are found in the common consciousness of 
men. Schelling was not a Berkleian. Notwithstand- 
ing his dynamical, idealistic theory of Nature, and his 
monism, the object had not less reality, in his system, 
than the subject. The external world was real, as well 
as the mind that perceives it. The same is affirmed 
by Hegel. Yet he constantly speaks of a transmuta- 
tion of consciousness from the state of perception to 
that of conception, and of the transmutation of the 
thing also, which is the object of perception, into the 
mental concept. It is plain that with Hegel both 
subject and object, thinker and thing, are engulfed 
in the logical thought-process, and that both coalesce 
and are identified in the Absolute. The object has 
nothing more than a transient reality. The ordinary 
sense-perception is only the first stage in a movement 
which soon liberates consciousness from this impression 
of a distinct externality in the object, and in the con- 
summation of which both object and subject resolve 
themselves into the one, identical, absolute being. 
Then all reality is fathomed, and thence, as from a 
new starting-point, the universe is reconstructed by 
the philosopher, or rather rises of itself, by its own 
inherent and necessary movement, in his consciousness 
This process as it takes place in the consciousness of 
the philosopher, is the self-unfolding of the innermost 
nature of things. In it and through it Deity attains 
to self-consciousness. 1 

1 Among the multitude of German dissertations which have a 



THE HEGELIAN THEOLOGY. 557 

The Hegelian school pretended to find an equiva- 
lent for the objects of Christian faith and the proposi- 
tions of Christian theology in the dogmas of their 
system. The latter were said to be the pure and final 
rendering of that which Christianity presents in a 
popular form. The substantial contents of both were 
averred to be identical. The Trinity, the Atonement, 
and the other doctrines of the orthodox creed had now 
— so it was claimed — received a philosophical vindica- 
tion • and the vulgar Rationalism which had flippantly 
impugned these high mysteries, was at length laid 
low. These sounding pretensions could only mislead 
the undiscerning. A philosophy which denies the 
distinct personality of God, and consequently must 
regard prayer as an absurdity, can by no legerdemain 
be identified with Christian doctrine. The appearance 
of the Life of Christ by Strauss, and the subsequent 
productions of Baur and his school, through the appli- 
cations which they made of the Hegelian tenets to the 
New Testament history and the teaching of the 
apostles, placed this conclusion beyond a doubt. 

Having thus noticed the leading forms of Panthe- 
ism, we offer some remarks which may serve to evince 
the untenable character of this philosophy. 

1. The fundamental assumption of Pantheism that 

bearing on the origin and character of the new philosophy, we may 
refer here to one, the beautiful Essay of Schelling uber die Quelle der 
Ewigen Wahrheiten, which was read in the Berlin Academy in 1850. 
See Schelling's "Works (II. Abth. I.), p. 575. 



658 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

all things are of one substance, whether taken in the 
Spinozistic sense, or in that of the later German phi- 
losophers — is not supported by evidence, but is con- 
trary to the truth. 

The doctrine of one Substance, this grand postu- 
late of Pantheism, is an uncertified dogma for which 
no proof is vouchsafed. Yet it forms the foundation 
on which the Pantheistic systems rest. 

There is the best reason for concluding that the 
objects of perception are essentially distinct from the 
percipient mind. These objects are seen face to face, 
and known as external. In their manifestations they 
are totally diverse from the characteristics of mind, 
which are revealed in consciousness. It is a just 
inference that materialism and idealism, the two forms 
of the monistic theory, are alike false. 

As concerns the Hegelian scheme, Schelling, in his 
new system, has suggested a sufficient refutation. If 
the logical development in Hegel were allowed to be 
throughout coherent and demonstrative, we have only 
a string of abstractions. We have only a theory, or 
ideal framework, of the universe, but no reality, no 
real being. If there are no realities corresponding to 
the idea and known through experience, the universe 
is still a void. It were as rational to confound the 
plan of a castle with the actual edifice, as to identify 
a concept with a real being, or the aggregate of con- 
cepts with a universe of realities. Therefore, Hegel's 
logic at best describes only the possibility of things. 



PANTHEISM UNTENABLE. 559 

It is a merely negative philosophy. If this philosophy 
were all, and if real being were not brought to our 
knowledge through experience, the result would be 
Nihilism. Thought and being are distinct, and with 
the admission of the truth of this proposition, Panthe- 
ism falls to the ground. 

2. The Pantheistic dogma, even though it were 
admitted, does not solve the problem which it pre- 
tends to explain. Knowledge is not accounted for by 
being wholly resolved into self-knowledge ; for self- 
knowledge is a phenomenon not a whit less mysterious 
and inexplicable than the knowledge of not-self. The 
Pantheist takes it for granted that the knowledge of 
anything distinct in substance from the knower, is out 
of the question : as if the knowledge which the knower 
has of himself were a thing more easy to understand. 

3. The Pantheistic conception of the Absolute is 
self- contradictory and false. 

We believe in an Absolute Being, that is, in a 
being for whose existence no other being is necessary, 
or w T ho stands related to no other being, as a condition 
of existence. But the Pantheistic Absolute includes 
in itself and develops out of itself the relative. Here 
is the contradiction. The Absolute is placed in a 
necessary relation to finite, relative existences. They 
emanate de necessitate naturae from the bosom of the 
Absolute. The conception of the latter is thus directly 
violated ; and this inconsistency cannot be removed 
from the Pantheistic scheme. 



560 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

4. The deduction of finite existence from infinite 
being the Pantheist fails to make conceivable. 

How cogitative and incogitative existences are 
developed out of the characterless substance, Spinoza 
wholly fails to render intelligible. How is the world 
and all things in it to issue forth from unlimited, 
uncharacterized being? What is the moving force, 
and what the modus operandi ? Hegel, in his system, 
is obliged at the outset to proceed on the supposition 
that motion or activity belongs inherently to the primi- 
tive notion, and thus introduces a quality with which 
we become acquainted through experience; but even 
then the transition from being without attributes to 
being specially characterized, from nothing to some- 
thing, is effected by sleight of hand. 

5. The Pantheist's conception of God does not 
satisfy his own description of the infinite and absolute 
being. 

The God of the Pantheist is dependent on a pro- 
cess of development for the realization of his own 
being. It is only in the last stage of this progress 
that self-consciousness is reached; and then in no 
individual, but only in the human race collectively, 
through the course of its history. But what kind of 
God is that which must emerge by slow gradations 
from a merely potential existence to the manifestation 
and comprehension of his own being ? 

6. At the same time, the objections of the Panthe- 
ist to the theistic conception are groundless. 



PANTHEISM UNTENABLE. 561 

(1) The Pantheist objects that self-consciousness 
cannot belong to God in Himself considered, because 
for the awakening and development of consciousness 
an external object is required. But this statement is 
an unauthorized inference from what is true of person- 
ality in man. We are connected with a material 
organism, and placed in a relation of dependence upon 
it for the unfolding of our spiritual natures. But we 
have no right to conclude that this peculiarity attaches, 
as a necessary condition, to all personality. The 
uncreated, eternal spirit is subject to no such condi- 
tion. 

(2) Nor does personality clash with infinitude of 
perfections. God is infinite, because all conceivable 
perfections belong to Him, and belong to Him without 
limit in their measure. Infinity is a negative pre- 
dicate. As applied to a given quality in God, it 
means that this quality is not partially possessed, but 
possessed in the fullest conceivable measure. As 
applied to the sum of excellencies, it denotes that this 
sum admits of no addition. 

(3) Nor is the existence of the world as distinct 
in its essence from God, inconsistent with His being 
the Absolute. If the world were a necessary exist- 
ence, if God would not be God without the world, 
if He were constrained to give being to the world, 
then indeed the assertion of the Pantheist might be 
true. But the limitation which God puts upon him- 
self in creation is voluntary. It is a self -limitation, 

38 



562 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

Creation is no wise essential to the realization of His 
attributes, but is a most free act, performed in the 
exercise of benevolence. 

We have touched upon the weakness of Panthe- 
ism when regarded from a speculative point of view. 
There is another objection of a different kind, but 
of decisive weight, against all the Pantheistic sys- 
tems. 

7. Pantheism runs counter to our moral intuitions. 

This is a practical objection, an objection to the 
consequences of the Pantheistic philosophy, but not 
the less pertinent and valid on that account; for a 
system which involves among its legitimate con- 
sequences the denial of known truth, is thereby effec- 
tually disproved. 

Every Pantheistic scheme is, and must be, 
thoroughly necessitarian. The world is not a creation, 
but a necessary development. All events take place 
by the same rigid necessity. A holy or a sinful act 
must be when and where it is, just as a star must 
revolve or a plant grow. Moral liberty, as appre- 
hended by the common understanding of men, is 
illusive. The distinction between physical and ethical 
experiences of the soul is extinguished. Even per- 
sonality itself is only phenomenal. Evil is not evil, 
save to finite apprehension ; seen from a loftier plane 
it is a form of good. The one is equally essential 
and desirable with the other. Crime, remorse, the 
self- approval of virtue, are robbed of their essential 



PANTHEISM UNTENABLE. m 563 

significance. Moral responsibility, in the deep and 
true sense in which conscience affirms it, has no place. 

These consequences, though sometimes disguised 
under an obscure or sounding terminology, inevitably 
attend Pantheism in all its forms. The ablest advo- 
cates of this philosophy, including both Spinoza and 
Hegel, have involuntarily betrayed the embarrassment 
which these conclusions are well fitted to awaken. 
Against them the moral sense of every unperverted 
mind will forever lift an indignant denial. But the 
irresistible protest of conscience tells with equal effect 
against the whole system with which they are insepa- 
rably connected. 

The Pantheistic systems of philosophy which have 
appeared in Germany since Kant, regarded as exer- 
tions of intellectual power, have hardly been surpassed 
since the best days of the Greek philosophy. But 
they are built upon a false foundation, and hence, 
though they contain materials of high and lasting 
value, they are structures which cannot stand. Their 
splendor is like the deceptive lustre of that "fabric 
huge " which was reared by the fallen spirits, where 

" from the arched roof, 
Pendent by subtle magic, many a row 
Of starry lamps and blazing cressets, fed 
By naphtha and asphaltus, yielded light 
As from a shy." 

There are two generic opinions among Christian 
theologians respecting the origin of our belief in God. 



564 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

By some it is considered to be implanted in the mind 
and spontaneously developed ; by others it is thought 
to be imported into the mind, or to be the result of a 
process of reasoning. Perhaps the difference might be 
resolved into a verbal one ; since the first class gen- 
erally allow that this native belief is educed by training 
and the view of the works of God, and the second 
confess that an original tendency to believe in God 
belongs to the human soul. And such an original 
tendency is hardly distinguishable from a nisus — a 
germinant belief. This disagreement in regard to the 
genesis of our faith in God is generally connected with 
differences in Psychology, or in the mode of stating the 
functions and the early operations of the mind. It 
must be conceded that those who hold that the knowl- 
edge of God is intuitive, have often failed to state 
their doctrine with clearness, or to set it in connection 
with acknowledged principles of mental philosophy. 

Our own position is that the belief in God does 
not originate in external, traditionary teaching, like a 
fact in history or science, which is handed down from 
one generation to another; it does not originate, 
properly speaking, from the view of the objective 
manifestations of God, for instance in the works of • 
Nature, or the course of history ; nor does it flow from 
any empirical source. But this belief is potentially 
inherent in the mind, and is obscurely present in the 
earliest operations of intelligence. Dependent for its 
full explication upon instruction, and upon the various 






FAITH IN GOD. 565 

proofs which corroborate at the same time that they 
explicate and develope it ; subject, also, in common 
with the moral sense, with which it is vitally connected, 
to the darkening and perverting influence of evil, faith 
in God is yet seminally native to the soul, and is 
seldom, if ever, so extinguished that it may not, in 
favoring circumstances, again revive, and even assert 
itself against every attempt of the will to eradicate it. 

The tremendous hold which religion has had upon 
mankind in all nations and ages forbids the supposi- 
tion that it owes its origin to tradition merely, to 
processes of argument, or even solely to a perception 
of the marks of design in Nature. A phenomenon so 
deep and universal must be due to a profounder cause, 
and a cause more directly operative. The shallow 
theory which ascribed religion to the craft of priests 
and lawgivers was long ago exploded. The theory, 
which is only a little less superficial, that religion took 
its rise from the alarm excited by startlino; occurrences 
in Nature, is also well-nigh obsolete. Impressions 
from this source are fleeting, and impressions of terror 
are quickly effaced by those of a different character, 
which are awakened by opposite aspects of Nature. 
Faith, moreover, is too deeply imbedded in the moral 
feelings to be accounted for by this external and acci- 
dental cause. If it be said that religion is due to the 
personifying imagination of uncultured men, we have 
the same answer. This may account to some extent 
for the form which heathen religions take ; but without 



566 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

a prior belief in the supernatural and yearning for it, 
without the principle of worship, and the sense of 
accountability to a higher Being, the religions of 
Paganism could never subsist. Nor is the argument 
from design, important as this argument is in its place, 
to be considered either the primary source, or the 
principal ground, of the belief in God. 

It may be objected that the belief in a supernat- 
ural Power is not universal, and that religion in some 
peoples is feebly manifested. The Chinese are said to 
be such a people. But if the religious feelings are 
susceptible of decay, the same is true of the moral 
feelings, the sense of ethical justice and ethical truth. 
If the feebleness and corruption of conscience does not 
militate against the doctrine of a native and universal 
principle of rectitude, the same is true of a similar low 
state of religious convictions. In both cases, the 
seeming exception establishes the rule. 

The two essential characteristics of the human 
mind are self-consciousness and self-determination. 
The one is indispensable to the other \ for if the deter- 
mination of the will is a conscious act, it is not less 
true that if the voluntary power were absolutely inact- 
ive or wanting, that distinct separation of self from 
the world without, which is involved in self-conscious- 
ness, is not supposable. Now, for the realizing of 
self-consciousness, the mind is thus dependent upon 
the existence of the world without us, and in our 
mental states are always found elements derived from 



FAITH IN GOD. 567 

this outer world to which we are so closely united. In 
this dependence, we have decisive proof that the soul — 
the spiritual part — is not self-originated. At the same 
time we know equally well that it is not derived from 
material nature, for it is toto genere distinct from the 
world of matter, and in the sphere of Nature the law 
holds that like produces like. In this twofold con- 
viction lies the first suggestion of an infinite personali- 
ty, the living creator and God, from whom our finite 
soul derives its being. Intimately connected with this 
presage or incipient faith, is the conscious subjection 
of the will to an authoritative law which yet the will 
does not impose upon itself, but which is identified 
with the will of the Being from whom the soul 
springs, while at the same time through this law, his 
holy character, if not clearly discerned, is indistinctly 
divined. Thus in the background of our moral and 
spiritual natures, God is immediately revealed, the 
ground of our being, at once our Creator and Lord. 
Thus we can understand how, with every fresh 
awakening of conscience, God is vividly present to the 
consciousness ; and the natural voice of guilt, as well 
as of dependence, is prayer. 1 

1 The doctrine of the preceding paragraph is presented, in sub- 
stance, by Julius Muller, Lehre von der Sihnde, I. 101 seq. Compare 
the argument of Hugo of St. Victor from the existence of the soul, 
and the similar argument of Locke {Essay on the Understanding , 
B. iv. c. 10). The main proposition of Locke is that cogitable exist- 
ence cannot be produced out of incogitable, the minor premise 
being that the human mind is a cogitable existence. 



568 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

It should be observed that we have not been 
framing an argument to prove the existence of God. 
What we have said is rather an analysis of conscious- 
ness for the purpose of unfolding the elements that 
enter into it, and of showing that the consciousness of 
self involves as a condition, not only an immediate 
knowledge of the external world, but equally a faith in 
God. The world, self, and God, are the three factors, 
which are the elements of our personal consciousness. 1 

It is the prevailing habit of German writers to 
describe our immediate faith as the consciousness of 
God [Gottes-bewusstsein]. We are said to be con- 
scious of that which is the object of immediate knowl- 
edge. That we are conscious of the outward world, 
or the objects of sense-perception, is phraseology 
sanctioned in the philosophy of Sir William Hamilton. 
That we are conscious of self, or phraseology equiva- 
lent to this, is current in speech. The external object 
so directly manifests itself to us that we know that it 
exists. Thus, also, self or the conscious ego, is so 
manifested in consciousness that we know that we 
exist. The analogous fact respecting the Divine being 
is denoted by the term God-consciousness, or conscious- 
ness of God. 

The phenomena of our religious consciousness 
would be imperfectly described, if we pointed out sim- 

1 That faith in the unconditioned being is " an original factor of 
our thinking," not derived from the law of causality, but implied in 
it, is well shown by Ulrici, Gott und die 2Tatur } p. 606. 



THE ROOT OF FAITH IN FEELING. 569 

ply the belief in Gocl which is awakened in the man- 
ner delineated above. Vitally associated with this 
awakening faith, is the attraction towards communion 
with God, or the inward gravitation of the soul towards 
the Being in whom it lives, which forms an essential 
foundation of prayer and worship. 

Attention is also required to the fact that faith in 
God is primarily a matter of feeling. They who are 
wont to consider the mind a congeries of faculties, in 
which thought, feeling, and will are coordinate, find it 
hard to comprehend this. 1 But when we look to the 
genesis of our ideas, to the process in which intelli- 
gence is developed, we discover that feeling is antece- 
dent. In regard to the knowledge we have of the 
outer world, sensation, in which the mind is acted upon, 
precedes perception. Now the feeling of God, or, to 
use a more expressive term, the sense of God, precedes 
the distinct idea. The recognition of God, though 
including an activity of the intelligence, is grounded 
in, and pervaded by, feeling. The error of Schleierma- 
cher did not consist in his founding piety in feeling, as 
a psychological fact, but it lay in his confining piety to 
the incipient stage of faith. He would shut up the 
mind, as far as the exercise of piety is concerned, to 
the consciousness of its own state, with no reference 

1 "Erne Psychologie, die aus Erkennen, Begehren und Eiihlen 
drei coordinirte Formen des Bewusstseins macht, hebt alle Mog- 
lichkeit auf, in dieser Sache etvvas zu erklaren." Nitzsch, System d. 
Christ. Lehre, p. 23. Compare the note on p. 27, in reply to 
Schwartz. 



570 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

of that state to a distinct personal object. It is just 
as if we were to stop with simple sensation, instead of 
through sensation advancing to the perception of the 
world without us. We are supposed to be conscious 
of a certain mental state, the feeling of dependence, as 
we are sensible of an ache in a limb, and there, as far 
as piety is concerned, the matter ends. Schleiermacher 
was also wrong in resolving piety wholly into the 
feeling of dependence ; since the yearning for com- 
munion with God, not to speak of the feeling of obli- 
gation, is an equally essential element; but this is 
comparatively a venial error. The mystic, who makes 
feeling directly percipient, is still more at fault. As 
we humbly conceive, the truth is that the mind is 
affected in certain ways, in the department of feeling, 
by the great Being in whom we live and move, just as 
self and the outward world make themselves felt in 
consciousness ; and the states of consciousness thus 
originating from God involve and beget an immediate 
faith in His existence — a faith, however, in which feel- 
ing, as it is the root, is likewise the predominant ele- 
ment. For example, remorse of conscience includes 
a sense of accountability, and this implies a sense of 
God. The feeling itself is God's work in the soul, 
and is felt to be so. God is believed in, through this 
feeling, not by a process of argument, but immediately. 
He is, literally speaking, manifesting Himself to the 
soul. It is true that men may discredit the manifesta- 
tions of God in the soul, and disbelieve in him. So 



ORIGIN OF FAITH IN GOD. 571 

they may speculate themselves out of the belief in the 
reality of the external world, or even of their own 
existence. " They may deny, and have denied, • the 
reality of a moral law binding on the conscience, and 
quench this light that is in thern. The belief in 
God is, also, largely dependent on the state of the will ; 
in this respect, that the alienation of the will and heart 
from that Being may weaken and well-nigh deaden 
this faith. Nor should we overlook the truth that it 
is also dependent upon the will of God, who may 
withdraw or intensify those manifestations of Himself 
in which it originates. Unquestionably, the effect of 
sin is to reduce this implanted faith, so that in most 
men it appears as an obscure yearning after an object 
distant and dimly conceived. This state of the sinful 
mind is described in Scripture as a feeling after God. 
Men grope, as in the dark, for Him " who is not far 
from every one of us/' but whom we " did not choose 
to retain in our knowledge." * 

It is remarkable that in Germany almost all the 
writers of note, of all schools in philosophy, unite in 
regarding belief in God as an immediate act of the 
soul, and as rooted in feeling. This is conceded even 
by the Hegelians. They allow that such is the charac- 
ter of this faith in the primitive stage, and only con- 
tend, in accordance with their system, that such faith 

1 Clear psychological explanations relative to our primitive reli- 
gious faith or feeling may be found in the excellent work of Ulrici, 
Oott und die Natur, pp. 610, 620. The entire chapter is valuable. 



572 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

is only a rudimentary condition of consciousness, to be 
supplanted by its maturer development. Theologians 
who,' though influenced by Schleiermacher, have con- 
structed their systems in an independent spirit, such 
as Nitzsch and Twesten, Julius Muller and Rothe, in 
common with Trendelenberg, Ritter, Ulrici, and other 
philosophers of various schools, substantially agree in 
the doctrine that religion originates in an immediate 
faith, and emanates from no empirical source. Such, 
in fact, is the old doctrine of theology. An obscure 
knowledge of God — a notitia del — was held to be im- 
planted in the soul, and to be the immediate witness 
to God's existence. Such is the doctrine of Calvin 
and Melancthon, to say nothing of their forerunners 
and followers. 1 

What now is the purport and the force of the 
several arguments for the existence of God? We 
reply that these proofs are the different modes in 
which faith expresses itself, and seeks confirmation. 

1 Calvin pronounces it an incontrovertible truth that " the human 
mind, even by natural instinct, has some sense of Deity " — divinitatis 
sensum. He affirms that " men universally know that there is a 
God ; " that " some sense of the Divinity is inscribed on every heart." 
" Unde colligimus," he adds, " non esse doctrinam quae in scholis 
discenda sit, sed cujus sibi quisque db utero magister est." There is a 
natural " propensity to religion " in men, says Calvin, and an ine- 
radicable knowledge of God, which manifests itself in the worst men 
in spite of their will. See the Institutes, B. I., cc. ii. and iii. Me- 
lancthon says: " vult enim deus agnosci et celebrari ; et fulsisset 
illustris et firma notitia Dei in mentibus hominum, si natura homi- 
num mansisset integra." Loci Communes, I. De Deo. 



THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 573 

In them, faith, or the object of faith, is more exactly 
conceived and denned • and in them is found a cor- 
roboration, not arbitrary but substantial and valuable, 
of that faith which springs from the soul itself. Such 
proofs, therefore, are neither, on the one hand, of them- 
selves sufficient to create and sustain faith, nor are they, 
on the other hand, to be set aside as of no weight. 

The arguments for the being of God are capable of 
being classified in various ways. We shall consider 
them here under the three heads of the ontological, 
the cosmological, and the teleological arguments — the 
moral argument being embraced under the teleological, 
where it properly belongs. 

1. The Ontological proof proceeds from the idea 
of God, attempting to deduce therefrom the truth of 
His existence. The germ of this proof is in Augustin. 
It appears in its riper form in the celebrated argument 
of Anselm. The objection that the idea of the most 
perfect being imaginable is after all only an imagina- 
tion, Anselm endeavored to parry by the statement 
that this idea is far from being an arbitrary notion, like 
the image which fancy forms of the lost island (the 
illustration of Gaunilo), but is strictly a necessary idea, 
in the sense that the mind cannot escape from enter- 
taining it. The argument of Anselm stands in vital 
connection with his Realistic philosophy. 1 But he 

1 A being in the mind and a being in re, require the supposition 
of a genus — hence a being, according to Realism — embracing both. 
The true sense of Anselm's argument is best appreciated by Ritter, 



574 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

fails to show that existence in re is an attribute enter- 
ing into a concept, and falls into the error of inferring 
the existence of a thing from the definition of a word. 
Des Cartes assumed the existence of God to account 
for the presence in the human mind of the idea of 
the infinite and perfect being. As much reality, he 
thought, must belong to the cause as is found in the 
effect ; and this holds good where the effect is an idea. 
The idea of the infinite and perfect God cannot be 
produced in the mind by the things that surround us 
in the world. It implies, therefore, for its cause the 
Being himself. This reasoning does not carry full 
conviction ; and if the additional fact of a yearning to 
break through the bonds of our finite being and to 
commune with a higher Power, be introduced, we are 
brought back to the original faith which precedes 
logical argument. 

Yet the ontological argument, even though it be 
fallacious, is not without an indirect value. It pre- 
sents a true conception of God, regarded as a possible 
being. The being than whom no higher can be con- 
ceived, in case He exists, exists necessarily. 



Gesehichte d. Christ. Phil, III. 337. The validity of Anselm's argu- 
ment is maintained by the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More, in the 
early part of his Antidote to Atheism. It should be observed that 
Anselm's argument is to be found in the Proslogium, and in the Reply 
to Gaunilo. The earlier form of the argument in the Monologium 
resembles more nearly the argument of Augustin. Yet it is import- 
ant as showing the Realistic foundation on which the later argument 
rests. 



THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 575 

2. The Cosmological argument starts from the con- 
tingent character of all things presented to observation. 
Their changeful and dependent character implies the 
existence of an unchangeable and independent Being. 
The principle of causation unquestionably involves a 
belief in a First Cause, or a Cause which is not at the 
same time an effect : otherwise existences are traceable 
to no cause, and the principle of causation is made 
void. An eternal series is an absurd hypothesis, since 
it would be a series of effects without a cause. Elim- 
inate the element of time (which is not a cause), and 
the series becomes like a single momentary event, 
which would be an event without a cause. We are, 
therefore, compelled to believe in something which is 
eternal and independent. The defect of the argument 
is that it contains no strict proof of the personality of 
this eternal Being. It does not carry us necessarily 
beyond the Absolute of Pantheism. 

This is the defect of Dr. Samuel Clarke's attempt- 
ed demonstration of the being of God from the attri- 
butes of necessary existence. When he would prove 
the intelligence of the necessary being, he falls back 
upon the a-posteriori proof from marks of design in 
the world. 

Thus the cosmological argument establishes the 
existence of an eternal being, the cause or ground of 
all things, but does not fully satisfy the mind that He 
is intelligent and free. 

3. The Teleological argument is the proof from 



576 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

final causes. We discern, for example in the struc- 
ture of our own bodies, and in the material existences 
around us, features which, as we involuntarily feel, 
presuppose the agency of a free and intelligent cause. 
Through the action of our minds and the works of 
man, we are made familiar with the operation of intel- 
ligence ; and when we are confronted by phenomena 
strikingly analogous to the known expressions of our 
intelligence, we are authorized to attribute them to a 
like cause. 

The theory of a plastic force, or blindly working 
agency in Nature, similar to the supposed working of 
instinct in an animal or of the principle of growth in 
the plant, is sometimes brought forward in opposition 
to the doctrine of final causes. The objection is falla- 
cious • since the admitted " blindness " of that which 
is conceded to operate with the wisdom and precision 
of intelligence, is the very circumstance which carries 
us beyond the secondary cause and inspires the belief 
in a free and intelligent Power. 

Sir William Hamilton affirms that the argument 
from final causes is not valid, unless it be presupposed 
that the human mind is a free intelligence. 1 It is true 
that if the human mind itself be the product of an 
unintelligent force, as materialistic theories imply, the 
external world might not irrationally be thought to 
emanate from the same source. Both man and nature 
might be thought to be due to a common cause. It 

1 Hamilton's Metaphysics (Am. Ed.), p. 22. 



THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 577 

should be added, however, that the impression made 
by external Nature is a sign of our inbred conviction 
that we do indeed originate our actions, in the exer- 
cise of intelligence and freedom ; and under this suppo- 
sition, the argument from final causes in Nature retains 
its force. To set before it ends and choose means for 
attaining them is the distinctive act of mind. 

The physico-theological proof, or the proof from 
design in the w T orks of Nature, is one of the oldest, 
most universally impressive, and justly convincing of 
the various arguments for a personal God. It has 
been set forth by a series of writers from Socrates and 
Cicero to Paley, and acquires fresh illustration with 
every new discovery in physical science. It is brought 
forward in the Scriptures, as being sufficient to render 
ungodliness a sin. The devotional parts of the Bible 
abound in appeals to the testimony to the existence of 
God which his works present. 1 

The validity of this argument is not destroyed by 
the Darwinian theory that all living species are des- 
cended from a common parentage ; unless indeed this 
theory is allowed to run into materialism by bringing 
the human soul into the same category with animal and 
vegetable life. Were the Darwinian speculation estab- 
lished as a truth of science, the physico-theological 
proof would still be good. For if all species are re- 

1 One of the most impressive discussions of the subject of Final 
Causes is the chapter on the ZwecTc, in Trendelenburg's Logische 
Untersuchungen (revised ed.). 
37 



578 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

duced to one, the same marks of design still remain in 
that one comprehensive species ; and however far back 
we go in tracing the genesis of living things, the signs 
of the agency of a superior intelligence are indelibly 
stamped npon the whole system. 

Yet it must be confessed that the physico-theologi- 
cal argument, considered in the light of a strict proof, 
lacks completeness. In the first place, it rather 
suggests the idea of a builder or moulder of matter, 
than of an original Creator. To be sure, the Being 
who constructed Nature must have a profound knowl- 
edge of the properties of matter ; but then there have 
been philosophers, ancient and modern, who have held 
that matter itself is eternal. 1 In the second place, 
Nature is at best a finite product, and we are not 
authorized, in strict logic, to infer an infinite wisdom 
and power in its Maker. To identify omnipotence 
with exceedingly great power as Paley does, is to rea- 
son loosely and to abandon the proper conception of 
God. We will not dwell on seeming infelicities which 
meet us in the constitution of Nature, and which occa- 
sion perplexity. Finally, it is possible, without any 
violation of logic, to consider Nature to be the product 
of unintelligent forces operating in pursuance of an 
inherent law. The Pantheistic hypothesis is logically 
admissible. 

1 Yet, tliis objection of Kant proceeds on the notion of a possible 
separation of matter and force, which science does not favor. See 
Ulrici, Gott und Nctiur, p. 401. 



THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 579 

The office of the physico-theological argument, 
therefore, is, first, to educe and, secondly, to corroborate 
the faith in God which, as we have before explained, 
is an original possession of the human soul. It is a 
probable argument, deriving its probability from the 
anticipating faith which is defined and fortified through 
these outward manifestations of God in Nature. 

There is a teleology in History, as well as in 
Nature. Events conspire, through long periods of 
time, for the accomplishment of certain ends. All 
things are seen to work together for the securing of 
these ends. The thoughtful student of History is not 
less impressed with the proofs of forecast and far- 
reaching providential control, than the thoughtful 
student of Nature is struck with the traces of creative 
wisdom and will in the material world. 

The moral argument is put by Kant in the follow- 
ing form : we are made for two ends, morality or 
holiness, and happiness. These two ends, in the 
present state of existence, frequently fail to coincide ; 
the former is chosen at the expense of the latter. 
Hence we are obliged by the practical reason to sup- 
pose a future state, and a God by whom the system is 
adjusted or completed, and righteousness connected 
with happiness. 

Far more impressive is the proof which lies in the 
more direct evidences of a moral administration over 
this world. The distribution of natural good and evil, 
even though the system of moral government is 



580 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

unfinished in this life, is sufficient both to prove the 
existence of a divine Governor, and to evince, as 
Butler has cogently argued, that He approves of virtue 
and condemns vice. History is the record of judg- 
ments exercised over beings endued with a free and 
responsible nature. Rewards and punishments are 
allotted to individuals and nations, and the spectacle 
is one which is adapted to convince reflecting minds 
that God reigns. 

Yet this argument is not one that compels acquies- 
cence. It is possible for the mind to rest in the 
theory of a self-executing moral system or moral order, 
to the exclusion of the. agency of a personal being. 
Nor are there wanting adherents of such a theory. 
True, it seems untenable save on a necessitarian phi- 
losophy in which moral liberty is sacrificed. Yet the 
theory is one from which its adherents can be driven 
by no compulsion of logic. As in the case of the 
previous arguments, we have to fall back on the im- 
mediate feeling of the mind. Faith is elicited and 
confirmed, but not begotten, by the traces of a 
righteous moral administration, which are observed in 
the course of this world's history. 



INDEX. 



ACTA PILATI, origin of, 192. 
Acts, genuineness of the book 
of, 247 ; proved by the author's 
testimony, 247, by its moral spirit, 
252, by its relation to the Pauline 
Epistles, 254, by its contents, 256, 
by its unfitness to the end for which 
it is charged with being written, 
260 ; its alleged discrepancies with 
other books, 265 seq. ; the speeches 
in, 269 seq. 

Alogi, their opposition to John's Gos- 
pel, 69. 

Anselm, his Ontological argument for 
the existence of God, 573 n. 

Apocryphal Gospels, their relation to 
the Canonical, 190 seq. 

Apocalypse, authorship and date of, 
123 seq. ; corroborates the book of 
Acts, 278 ; on the person of Christ, 
327. 

Apollonius of Hierapo'lis, his testi- 
mony to John's Gospel, 45. 

Apollonius of Tyana, his history, 527. 

Apostolic Convention at Jerusalem, 
221. 

Arnold, on Inspiration, 9 ; on the. 
mythical theory, 372 ; on the char- 
acter of the middle ages, 372. 

Artemonites, their use of John's Gos- 
pel, 58. 

Athenagoras, his testimony to John's 
Gospel, 45. 

Augustin, on miracles, 473. 



BARNABAS, date of bis Epistle, 
158. 

Basilides, his use of John's Gospel 
67. 

Baur, F. C, on Justin's quotation 
of John iii. 3, 52 n. ; on the Alogi, 
70 ; admits that the fourth Gospel 
professes to be from John, 85 ; on 
Luke xiii. 34 seq. (Matt, xxiii. seq.), 
103 n. ; on the Paschal controver- 
sies of the second century, 108 seq. ; 
on the affinity of John's Gospel and 
the Apocalypse, 126 ; his theory 
respecting the authorship of the 
fourth Gospel examined, 131 seq. ; 
his imputation of Dualism to this 
Gospel, 132 ; his exposition of 
passages in this Gospel, 133 ; on 
the relation of this Gospel to the 
Synoptics, 144 ; on the character 
of the author of the fourth Gospel, 
148 seq. ; on the date of the first 
Gospel, 174; on Luke's Gospel, 
181 seq. ; onMarcion's Gospel, 185, 
187 ; on parties in the apostolic 
church, 205 seq. ; on Gal. ii., 231 ; 
refutation of his view of the book 
of Acts, 247 seq. ; his theory as to 
the Ebionites and the rise of the 
Catholic church, 285 ; his view of 
the Early Doctrine rqjpecting 
Christ, 311 ; his exegesis of pas- 
sages respecting the person of 
Christ, 321 seq. ; on the doctrine 



582 



INDEX. 



of the person of Christ in the sub- 
apostolie age, 828 ; his theory as 
to the conversion of Paul, 459. 
See Tubingen School. 

Bushnell, Horace, his Nature and the 
Supernatural, 30 n., 522 n. 

Bleek, 49 n. ; 51 ; 163. 

Bretschneider, his Probabilia, 33. 

Buddha, his character, 526. 

CELSUS, his testimony to John's 
Gospel, TO n. 

Christ, his repeated visits to Jerusa- 
lem proved by the synoptical Gos- 
pels, 99 seq. ; his lamentation over 
Jerusalem, 100 ; date of his cruci- 
fixion, 105 seq. ; his discourses 
recorded in the fourth Gospel, 111 ; 
his attitude in respect to the cere- 
mouial law, 212 ; the Early Doc- 
trine respecting His person, 311 
seq. ; doctrine of his person in 
Matthew, 322; in the Epistles of 
Paul, 324 ; in the Ep. to the He. 
brews and Apocalypse, 32*7 ; in the 
sub-apostolic age, 328 seq. ; in the 
ante-Nicene writers, 332 seq. ; in the 
Nicene creed, 336 ; his Resurrec- 
tion, 3*79 seq. ; credibility of his 
testimony concerning himself, 515 ; 
contents of this testimony, 516 ; 
his persistence in his claim, 518 ; 
his spotless character precludes 
self-deception, 520 ; his claim with- 
out analogy in the records of enthu- 
siasm, 525 ; contrasted with Socra- 
tes, 533. 

Christians, number of, in the second 
century, 76. 

Clark, Dr. Samuel, his demonstration 
of the being of God, 575. 

Clement of Alex., his testimony to 
John's Gospel, 40, 79. 

Clement of Rome, not a Judaizer, 
291. ' 

Cobbe, Frances Power, criticism of, 
28. 



Coleridge, on Inspiration, 11 ; on 
the nature of myths, 345 n. 

Confucius, his doctrine, 525. 

Compte, his scorn for mental philoso- 
phy, 540 ; his ignorance of meta- 
physical writers, 540 ; the merit of 
his philosophy, 540 ; his denial of 
final and efficient causes, 541 seq. ; 
his theory of human progress, 545 ; 
his false view of mythology, 547. 

DEISM, inconsistency of modern, 
27. 
De Wette, 92 n. 

Diognet, the Ep. to, on the person of 
Christ, 335. 

EBIONIT1SM, its origin and charac- 
ter, 283 seq. ; Baur's theory on, 
285 ; did not have sway in the sub- 
apostolic age, 310 ; alluded to by 
Justin, 313; when divided into two 
parties, 317. 

Egyptians, Apocryphal Gospel of the, 
199. 

Epistle o$ the Churches of Yienne 
and Lyons, its testimony to John's 
Gospel, 45. 

Essays and Reviews, criticism of, 15. 

Eusebius, his testimony to John's 
Gospel, 39 ; his references to the 
use of Scriptures by the Fathers, 
292, 293. 

Ewald, 49 n., 243 n. 

TOCHTE, his system, 553. 

n NOSTICS, their use of John's Gos- 

VJ pel, 71. 

God, origin of the belief in Him, 563 ; 
the belief in Him an immediate 
act, 564 ; genesis of the belief in 
God, 566 ; primary seat of this be- 
lief in feeling; Schleiermacher's 
theory respecting this belief, 569 ; 
that faith in God is immediate, the 
general tenet of theology and phi- 



INDEX. 



583 



losophy, 571 ; relation of faith in 
God to the arguments for his exist- 
ence, 572 ; the Ontological proof, 
573 ; the Cosmological proof, 575 ; 
the Teleological proof, 575 ; re- 
mark of Hamilton on the Teleologi- 
cal proof, 576 ; relation of the Te- 
leological argument to the Darwin- 
ian theory, 577 ; the moral argu- 
ment for the being of God, 579. 

Gospels, synoptical, evidence from 
them for the protracted ministry 
of Christ, 99 seq. ; origin of, 153 
seq. See Matthew, Luke. 

Gospels, how they first originated, 
202 ; their genuineness established, 
360. 

Grote, on the origin of myths, 345, 
370 seq. 



HEBREWS, Gospel of the, 51, 168 ; 
posterior to Matthew's Gospel, 
195. 

Hebrews, Ep. to the, on judaizing ten- 
dencies, 277, 320 ; on the person 
of Christ, 327. 

Hegel, his system, 554 ; his philos- 
ophy applied to theology, 557 ; re- 
futed by Schelliug, 558. 

Higesippus, not an Ebionite, 294. 

Heracleon, his commentary on 
John's Gospel, 62. 

Hermas, not an Ebionite, 297 ; on 
the person of Christ, 335. 

Hilgenfeld, 43 ; 54 n. ; on the Gos- 
pel of Matthew, 174. 

Hippolytus, 67. 

Hume, fallacy of his argument against 
miracles, 494. 



1GNATIAN Epistles, genuineness of, 
309. 
Inspiration, importance of the doc- 
trine of, 6 seq. ; Rothe's view of, 
10 ; Arnold's view of, 9 ; Cole- 
ridge's view of 11. 



Irenaeus, 38 ; testimony to John's 
Gospel, 41, 78 ; on the traditions 
of the Roman church, 283. 

JEROME, 38 ; testimony to John's 
Gospel, 39. 
John's Gospel, its genuineness ques- 
tioned by Bretschn eider, 33 ; by 
the Tiibingen school, 33 ; defences 
of, by Bleek, Meyer, Bruckner, 
Schneider, Ewald, Ebrard, and 
Mayer, 36 ; external evidence for, 
39 seq. ; attested by Jerome and 
Eusebius, 39 ; by Tertullian, 39 ; 
by Clement of Alex., 40 ; by Ire- 
naeus, 4-1 ; by Origen, 42 ; by the 
Canon of Muratori, 42 ; by the 
Peshito, 42 ; by Poly crates, 43 ; 
by Tatian, 43 ; by Theophilus of 
Antioch, 44 ; by Athenagoras, 45 ; 
by Apollinaris, 45 ; by the Ep. of 
the churches of Vienne and Lyons, 
45 ; by Justin Martyr, 46 seq. ; by 
Papias, 56 ; by Polycarp, 57 ; by 
the Artemonites, 58 ; by Marcion, 
59 seq. ; by Valentinus and his 
followers, 62 ; by Basilides, 67 ; by 
the Ophites and the Peratae, 68 ; 
by Celsus, 70 n. ; by tradition, 73 
seq. ; internal evidence for, 84 seq. ; 
shown by its claim to be the work 
of John, and by the manner of this 
claim, 84 seq., by the graphic 
character of the narrative, 86 seq., 
by its general structure and con- 
tents, 95 seq. ; its statement as to 
the duration of Christ's ministry, 
98 ; as to the date of the crucifix- 
ion, 105 •; its relation to the Pas- 
chal controversies, 103 ; its reports 
of the discourses of Christ, 111; 
the Hellenic culture and theological 
character of its author, 117; its 
relation to the Apocalypse, 123 
seq. ; its last chapter as proving its 
genuineness, 129 ; its genuineness 
defended against Baur, 131 seq. 



584 



INDEX. 



John, the Apostle, his residence at 
Ephesus, 37 ; his knowledge of the 
Greek language, 120. See John's 
Gospel. 

Justin Martyr, his date, 46 ; his 
use of " Memoirs by the Apostles," 
47 ; alleged use of uncanonical 
gospel histories, 48 ; use of the 
fourth Gospel, 50 seq. ; his devia- 
tions from the Gospels, 201 ; on 
judaizmg Christians, 313 ; on the 
person of Christ, 335. 

Tf ANT, his system, 551. 



LOGOS, origin of the idea of, 120 
seq. 
Luke's Gospel, its origin, 180 seq. ; 
value of its prologue, 189, 248, 
367. 



MARCION, his tenets, 59, 183 ; his 
treatment of the Gospels, 59 ; 
his acquaintance with John's Gos- 
pel, 60 seq. ; relation of his Gospel 
to the Gospel of Luke, 184 seq. 

Matthew, Gospel of, its relation to the 
Gospel of the Hebrews, 167; the 
prophecies of the Second Advent 
in, 169 ; Tubingen theories respect- 
ing, 173. 

Meyer, his wrong interpretation of 
Papias, 161. 

Mill, J. S., on Compte, 541 n. 

Miracles, the question of their reality 
of prime importance, 12 ; nature 
and function of the christian, 471 ; 
not merely relative, 472 ; defined 
by Augustin, Spinoza, Schleiermach- 
er, 473, 474 ; not violations of nat- 
ural law, 478 ; not contrary to ex- 
perience, 481 ; possibility of, 482; 
probability of, 486 ; fallacy of 
Hume's argument against, 494 ; 
special function of, 496 ; fallacy of 



objections to, 500 ; their relation 
to moral proofs, 503, why no 
longer necessary, 510. 

Mohammed, his character, 527; his 
life by Sprenger, 527. 

Muller, Julius, on miracles, 478, 
499 ; on the genesis of the belief 
in God, 567 n. 

Muller, K. O., on the origin of my- 
thology, 341. 

Mysticism, characterized, 8. 

Myths and mythology, definition of a 
myth, 341 ; origin of myths, 342 . 
seq. 

VTAZARENES, origin of the, 317 ; 

-Li their opinion respecting Christ, 
318. 

Norton, his view of the Gospel Me- 
moirs used by Justin, 49 n. ; 55. 

PAINE, his Age of Reason, 4. 
Pantheism, diffusion of, 26 ; at 
the bottom of modern unbelief, 30 ; 
definition of, 549 ; as held by Spi- 
noza, 549 ; of Fichte, 553 ; of Schel- 
ling, 554; of Hegel, 555; an un- 
tenable theory, 557 seq. ; error of 
its fundamental position, 557 ; fails 
to solve the problem of knowledge, 
559 ; its false conception of the 
Absolute, 559 ; unable to deduce 
finite from infinite being, 560 ; its 
God, not the Absolute, 560; its ob- 
jections to theism, groundless, 560 
seq. ; against our moral intuitions, 
562. 

Paley, his Horae Paidinae, 254. 

Papias, his testimony to John's Gos- 
pel, 56 ; his testimony respecting 
Matthew and Mark, 160 seq., 363; 
his work, 166 ; on the origin of 
Mark's Gospel, 177 ; not a Judai- 
zer, 292. 

Parker, Theodore, character of his 
criticism, 450 ; on the canonical 



INDEX. 



585 



Gospels, 450; on miracles, 451; 
his doctrine of the Absolute Reli- 
gion, 452 ; defect of his theology, 
453 ; his position as to Theism, 455. 

Pascal, his definition of a miracle, 
477. 

Paschal controversies of the second 
century, 108 seq. 

Paul, his controversy with Peter, 
223; his last visit to Jerusalem, 
224, 257 ; his relations to Peter 
and the other apostles, 232 seq. ; 
his circumcision of Timothy, 233 ; 
genuineness of the Epistles ascribed 
to him, 275; his doctrine of the 
person of Christ, 321 seq. ; his evi- 
dence of the Resurrection of Christ, 
379, 3S6 ; theory of Baur and 
Strauss as to his conversion, 459 ; 
testimony of the authorities as to 
his conversion, 462 ; fallacy of the 
skeptical theories as to his conver- 
sion, 464 ; defect of Baur's theory, 
466 ; his conversion not a vision, 
463. 

Paulus, bis scheme of interpretation, 
346. 

Peter, the Apostle, his 1st Epistle, 
275 ; why thought to be the found- 
er of the Roman church, 307. 

Peter, apocryphal Gospel of, 198. 

Philo, his conception of the Messiah, 
122. 

Polycarp, 41 ; his testimony to 
John's Gospel, 57. 

Polycrates, 37 ; his testimony to 
John's Gospel, 43, 78. 

Positivism. See Compie. 

Pothinus, 78. 

Protestantism,* its doctrine concerning 
the Rule of Eaith, 7. 

Pseudo-Clementine Eomilies, 51 n. ; 
their reception accounted for, 82 ; 
origin and character of, 299 seq. ; 
represented no considerable party, 
302 ; perverse use of by the Tu- 



bingen school, 304 ; their type of 
Ebionitism, 2S4. 
Ptoleaiaeus, his use of John's Gos- 
pel, 63. 

BATIOXALISM, characterized, 7, 



IV 



19 seq. 



Kenan, his Life of Christ contrasted 
with Paine's Age of Reason, 4 ; 
his disbelief in miracles, 13 ; his 
concessions, 362 ; his legendary 
theory, 433 seq., 440 ; on the 
monotheism of the Semitic nations, 
433 ; on the date and authorship 
of the Gospels, 435 ; his interpre- 
tations, 444 ; his conception of 
Christ, 448. 

Roman Catholic church, its Rule of 
Faith, 7. 

Roman church, predominantly Gen- 
tile, 305 ; not under judaizing infiu 
ence, 305 ; tradition of its founda- 
tion by Peter, 307. 

Rothe, his doctrine of Inspiration, 10. 

SCHELLIXG, on the origin of my- 
thology, 344 ; his philosophical 
system, 554. 
Schleiermacfier, his interpretation 
of to Koyia in Papias, 161 ; his hy- 
pothesis respecting the Acts, 249 ; 
his notion of miracles, 473 ; his 
theory as to the origin of religion, 
570. 

SCHWEGLER, 81. 

Serapion, on the Gospel of Peter, 83. 

Shexkel, on the date of John's Gos- 
pel, 77 n. 

Skepticism and Unbelief, tone of, 1 
seq. ; diffusion of, 5. 

Socrates, his idea of his mission, 
530. 

Spixoza, his definition of a miracle, 
473 ; his system, 549 seq. 

Stanley, his History of the Jewish 
church, 16. 



586 



INDEX. 



Strauss, D. F., his interpretation of 
Luke xiii, 34 seq. (Matt, xxiii. 3*7 
seq.), 100 seq. ; his use of the apo- 
cryphal Gospels, 191 ; his mythi- 
cal theory, 339 seq. ; begs the ques- 
tion, 341 ; his mythical theory ex- 
plained, 347 ; and disproved by the 
belief" of the Apostles and of Jesus 
in his Messiahship, 351 ; by the ab- 
sence of a body of disciples to 
•whom the myths can be ascribed, 
354 ; by the genuineness of the 
Gospels of the canon, 360 ; by the 
want of time for myths to spring 
up, 366 ; by the character of those 
times, 369 ; by the faith of the 
Apostles in the Kesurrection of 
Christ, 379 ; by the testimony of 
the book of Acts, 389 ; by the con- 
nection of the supernatural and the 
natural in the life of Christ, 390 ; 
by the arbitrary character of the 
criticism of Strauss, 396 ; by the 
inability to connect myths with 
their alleged models and motives, 
407 ; by its inconsistency with a 
fair view of the tempers of the 
founders of Christianity, 411 ; by 
its inability to explain Christ and 
Christianity, 414 ; by the false and 
demoralizing philosophy at its root, 
417 ; his restatement of his theory, 
421 seq. ; his relation to Baur, 



421 ; his remarks on the origin of 
the Gcspels, 424 ; on the use of the 
Gospels in Justin, 427, in Papias, 
427 ; en Marcion, 428 ; spirit of his 
second book, 430 ; its stoicism, 
431 ; on the conversion of Paul, 
459. 



rmTIAN, his testimony to John's 

J- Gospel, 43. 

Tertullian, his testimony to John's 
Gospel, 39; on Marcion's treatment 
of the Gospels, 60 ; on Valentinus' 
treatment of the Gospels, 63 ; on 
the tendency to nionarchianisrn, 
337. 

Theophilus of Antioch, his testimony 
to John's Gospel, 44. 

Tradition, nature of the argument 
from; proves the genuineness of 
the fourth Gospel, 77 seq. 

Tubingen School, its rejection of mir- 
acles, 14 ; its theory as to the 
fourth Gospel, 34 ; its theory as 
to the first Gospel, 173 ; on Mark's 
Gospel, 178. See Baur, F. C. 



ULPJCI, on primitive religious faith 
or feeling, 571. 



yALENTINUS, I 
' Gospel, 62 seq. 



his use of John's 



THE VICARIOUS SACRIFICE. 

Grounded in Principles of Universal Obligation, by Hokace Bush.vell, D.D. 1 vol., 
Svo., 552 pages. Price $3.00. 

PART I, 

Nothing Superlative in Vicarious Sacrifice, or above the Universal Principles of Right 

and Duty. — In Five Chapters. 

CONTENTS. 

I. — The Meaning of Vicarious Sacrifice. 

II. — The Eternal Father in Vicarious Sacrifice. 
III. — The Holy Spirit in Vicarious Sacrifice. 
IV. — The Good Angels in Vicarious Sacrifice. 

V. — All Souls redeemed to be in Vicarious Sacrifice. 

PART II. 

The Life and Sacrifice of Christ is what he does to become a Renovating and Saving 
Power. — In 4 Chapters. 

I. — Uses and Relations of the Healing Ministry. 
II. — Christ's Object in the Healing of Souls. 
HI. — He is to be God's Power in working such Recovery. 
IV — How he becomes so great a Power. 

PART III. 

The Relations of God's Law and Justice to his saving Work in Christ. 

I. — The Law before Government. 

II. — Instituted Government. 

III. — The Antagonism between Justice and Mercy. 

IV. — The Law Precept duly sanctified. 

V. — Legal Enforcements not diminished. 
VI. — God's Rectoral Honor effectively maintained. 
VII. — Justification by Faith. 

PART IV. 

Sacrificial Symbols, their Uses. 

I. — Sacrifice and Blood, and their Uses. 
n. — Atonement — Propitiation and Expiation. 
HI. — Practical Uses and "Ways of Preaching. 

CHRIST AND HIS SALVATION 

In Sermons variously related thereto. By Horace Bushxell, D.D. 1 vol., 12mo, 
460 pages. Price $2 00, 

'• We do not know where to look among modern writers for any discourses so full of the vital 
and necessary elements of Christianity, so compact of thought, so searching and logical, so rich in 
unostentatious learning, so lucid in treatment, so attractive in style,"' <fcc. — Hartford Etfng. Press. 

" They are not only learned and eloquent expositions of the scriptural way of salvation, but 
warm, mellow and delicious, as ripened autumnal fruits gathered in the garden of the Lord. — 
y. T. Christian Lvelligencer. 

CHARACTER OF JESUS 

Forbiddi&g his possible classification with men. By Horace Bcshxell, D.D. 1 verj 
neat volume, bound in unique style. Price $1 00. 

In this little volume we reprint, with consent of the author, the tenth chapter of 
" Nature and. Supernatural.'' 



BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CHAS. SOEIBNEE & CO. 

NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL, 

AS TOGETHER CONSTITUTING THE ONE SYSTEM OF GOD 

BY REV. HORACE BUSENELL, D.D. 

1 vol. 8vo., 550 pages. $2 25. 

* 'Whatever misgiving may exist in any mind in taking up this last and greatest work 
of Dr. Bushn ell's, we believe will soon be swept away by its tide of argument and elo- 
quence. It deals with the greatest problems that can engage the mind of man. Dr. 
Bushnell, with a clear, penetrating sagacity, and with remarkable grasp of thought, 
6eizes at once the most obnoxious and dangerous features of modern scepticism, and 
submits them to a scrutiny which exposes their inherent native deformity. The author 
aims at a noble mark, and, in our judgment, reaches it. The work will rank very high 
among the literary and theological productions of the present century." — New York 
Evangelist. 

"The discussion is conducted with great ability, abounding in large views, profound 
arguments and apt illustra'.iorLS. It is a quiver full of arrows wherewith to defend the 
citadel of Truth against the assaults of Science, falsely so called " — Christian Intelli- 
gencer. 

" A noble monument of the earnest and talented author's production to religious 
science and literature. As a solution of the difficulties which modern schools of phil- 
osophy have raised against a supernatural system of grace, we regard this as by far the 
ablest work which has appeared since Eationalism opened its assaults upon the Chris- 
tian faith. It should be among the first books purchased by the minister in making up 
a library, however scanty." — New York Independent. 

WHAT THE QUAETEELY EEVIEWS SAY. 

The North American Review says : — "The author has rendered a most important 
Bervice to Christian Faith, both as regards the external facts of our religion, and the 
more recondite experience of its true disciples. We accept his theory in its essential 
features, and rejoice in the ability and lucidness with which it is here developed." 

The Princeton Review says : — " It is quite the most able and valuable of Dr. Bush- 
ncll's works on theology. It of course bears the imprint of the author's genius, in its 
fresh and brilliant diction, its affluent originality and bewitching felicity of illustration, 
its episodic passages of marvellous beauty and eloquence." 

The New England er says: — "To many who care little for the name, but have sighed 
for the reality of an established faith, it will prove a benison for which their hearts will 
ever bless the writer. * * * The delineation of the character of Jesus is, in our view, 
the finest upon its theme in English literature. "We do not hesitate to pronounce it a 
magnificent book, a truly Christian book, and one pre-eminently adapted to the times 
in which we live.'' 

The American Theological Review says :•— " "We are prepared to say that we have 
never followed so close and so forcible an argument, that was at the same time so read- 
able. It is one of the freshest books of the season, or of any season ' 



BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CHAS. SCRIBNEK & CO. 

NOTICES OF NATURE AND SUPERNATURAL CONTINUED. 
The Mercersburg Review says :— " "We welcome this book with all our heart, as a 
most valuable accession to the theological literature of the age. Dr. Bushnell has con- 
trived to throw into it the full vivacity and freshness of hi3 own nature. It is rich 
throughout with thoughts that breathe and words that glow and burn. The book is 
one which deserves to live, and that maybe expected to take its place, we think, among 
the enduring works of the age." 



SERMONS FOR THE NEW LIFE. 

BY HORACE BUSHNELL, D.D. 

1 vol. 12mo. 456 pages. $2 00. 

Contents.— I.— Every Man's Life a Plan of God. II.— The Spirit in Man. ILL— 
Dignity of Human Nature shown from its Euins. IV. — The Hunger of the Soul. 
V.— The Reason of Faith. VI.— Regeneration. VII.— The Personal Love and Lead oi 
Christ VIII.— Light on the Cloud. IX.— The Capacity of Religion Extirpated by 
Disuse. X — Unconscious Influence. XL — Obligation a Privilege. XII. — Happiness 
and Joy. XIII.— The True Problem of Christian Experience. XIV. --The Lost Purity 
Restored. XV.— Living to God in Small Things. XVI.— The Power of an Endless 
Life. XVIL— Respectable Sin. XVIII.— The Power of God in Self-Sacrifice. XIX. 
Duty not Measured by Our Own Ability. XX. — He that Knows God will Confess 
Him. XXL— The Efficiency of the Passive Virtues. XXII.— Spiritual Dislodgments. 
XXIII.— Christ as Separate from the World. 

The Methodist Quarterly for July says : — "Our American pulpit has lately furnished 
no volume presenting so deep a reach of thought in the speaker, or presupposing so 
nigh a moral and intellectual appreciation on the part of the congregation. * * Dr. 
Bushnell has a deep insight, and a searching power of tracing the relations of great 
truths to each other. The overmastering trait of his productions is cool, stern, slow, 
moving intellect; yet intellect gently interpenetrated and made malleable by moral 
feeling — imagination, too, there is, but none for its own sake." 

The Princeton Revieio says: — "These discourses, although they apparently differ a 
good deal in character, bear the clear impress of Dr. Bushnell's genius." 

The North American Review says :— " In original forms of thought, that highest 
order of originality, which comes more from nice elaboration than from wayward spon- 
taneity, it is surpassingly rich. Another generation will peruse it as a book that has 
life in it — the double life of its author and of vital truth." 

The Monthly Religious Magazine says : — " Nor are these sermons written on tne 
same level with any of the author's preceding productions. They betoken a deepei 
experience. They speak from a richer knowledge. They are the expression of a faith 
wrought patiently out by a harder discipline." 



FROUDE'S "ENGLAND." 



fistej jtf ^ttjlatft, torn % | all jtf Uatos to lire jg*auj 
jtf (Eli^MIr, 

By James Anthony Froude, M. A., late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 
From the fourth London edition. In crown octavo vols. Price, $2.50 per vol. 
{The first four volumes of this edition now ready ; the other volumes will 
follow shortly. 

Vols. I. to IV. Reign of Henry VIII. Vols. V. and VI. Reigns of Edward 
VI. and Mary. Vols. VII. and VHL Reign of Elizaheth. 

Mr. Froude has shown in his admirable history what new results may be de- 
rived, even in the most beaten track, from a thorough investigation of the 
original authorities. His researches have thrown a flood of light over the per- 
sonal character of Henry the Eighth and his relation to the great event of 
modern history, the Reformation of Religion in Europe and the British Isles, 
that it would be in vain to seek elsewhere. His views often run counter to 
received opinions, but they are always supported by a weight of eviuence and 
a classic polish of style that place him high in the rank of modern historians. 

The work has received the most favorable notices from the leading English 
journals, and has already passed through four editions in England. The vast 
amount of fresh and authentic materials which the author has brought to bear 
on the periods of which he writes, give his work an interest and value beyond 
any previous history of the same events. 

" We read these volumes with the pleasure derived from interesting materials 
worked up in an attractive form." — Edinburgh Review. 

" The style is excellent ; sound, honest, forcible, singularly perspicuous Eng- 
lish ; at times with a sort of picturesque simplicity, pictures dashed off with 
only a few touches, but perfectly alive. . . . We have never to read a pas- 
sage twice. . . . We see the course of events day by day, not only the 
more serious and important communications, but the gossip of the hour. 

". . . If truth and vivid reality be the perfection of history, much is to be 
said in favor of this mode of composition." — London Quarterly. 



$m% »s |l2ito#r, f airtot anir fwi. 

With an analysis of the Divina Commedia, its Plot and Episodes. By Pro- 
fessor Botta. 1 vol., crown 8vo. $2.50. 

The 'New York Evening Post says : — " We have seen a portion of this work, 
and regard it as decidedly the best account of the poet that has appeared in the 
English language. It is careful, learned, discriminating and eloquent, written 
in terse and" eloquent English that is remarkable in the pen of an author not 
native to our soil. The analysis of the poem is full and philosophical, alive with 
Italian enthusiasm, yet calm and truly catholic in its humanity and trust. It 
will do more than anything within reach to answer the question that so many 
are now askino- : " Who is this Dante, whose name is now so much on the lips 
of scholars, but who is as much in the dark to most of us as the dark ages in 
which he lived?" 

Copies sent "by mail, postpaid, on receipt of price. 



FORSYTH'S "CICERO." 



% feto t'xit <rf tiitttt. 

BY WILLIAM FORSYTH, M. A., Q. C. 

With Twenty Illustrations. 2 vols, crown octavo. Printed on tinted and laid 
paper. Price, $5.00. 



The object of this work is to exhibit Cicero not merely as a Statesman and 
an Orator, but as he was at home in the relations of private life, as a Husband, 
a Father, a Brother, and a Friend. His letters are full of interesting details, 
which enable us to form a vivid idea of how the old Romans lived 2,000 years 
ago ; and the Biography embraces not only a History of Events, as momentous 
as any in the annals of the world, but a large amount of Anecdote and Gossip, 
which amused the generation that witnessed the downfall of the Republic. 

The London Athenceum says : " Mr. Forsyth has rightly aimed to set before 
us a portrait of Cicero in the modern style of biography, carefully gleaning 
from his extensive correspondence all those little traits of character and habit 
which marked his private and domestic life. These volumes form a very 
acceptable addition to the classic library. The style is that of a scholar and a 
man of taste." 

From the Saturday Review: — " Mr. Forsyth has discreetly told his story, 
evenly and pleasantly supplied it with apt illustrations from modern law, 
eloquence, and history, and brought Cicero as near to the present time as the 
differences of age and manners warrant. * .* * These volumes we heartily 
recommend as both a useful and agreeable guide to the writings and character 
of one who was next in intellectual and political rank to the foremost man of all 
the world, at a period when there were many to dispute with him the triple 
crown of forensic, philosophic, and political composition." 

" A scholar without pedantry, and a Christian without cant, Mr. Forsyth 
seems to have seized with praiseworthy tact the precise attitude which it behoves 
a biographer to take when narrating the life, the personal life, of Cicero. Mr. 
Forsyth produces what we venture to say will become one of the classics of 
English biographical literature, and will be welcomed by readers of all ages and 
both sexes, of all professions and of no profession at all." — London Qicarterly. 

u This book is a valuable contribution to our Standard Literature. It is a 
work which will aid our progress towards the truth ; it lifts a corner of the veil 
which has hung over the scenes and actors of times so full of ferment, and 
allows us to catch a glimpse of the stage upon which the great arama was 
played." — North American Review. 

Copies sent "by mail, postpaid, on receipt of price. 



LORD DERBY'S "HOMER." 



Cfre pair of fonur. 

RENDERED INTO ENGLISH BLANK VERSE BY EDWARD, EARL OF DERBY, 

From the fifth London Edition. 
Two volumes, royal octavo, on tinted paper. Price $7.50 per vol. 

Extracts from Notices and Reviews from the English Quarterlies, &c. 

"The merits of Lord Derby's translation maybe summed up in one word: "it Is 
eminently attractive ; it is instinct with life ; it may be read with fervent interest; it is im- 
measurably nearer than Pope to the text of the original. * * * We think that Lord Derby's 
translation will not only be read, but read over and over again. * * * Lord Derby has given 
to England a version far more closely allied to the original, and superior to any that has 
yet been attempted in the blank verse of our language." — Edinburgh Review, Januarys 
1865. 

" As often as we return from even the best of them (other translations) to the translation 
before us, we find ourselves in a purer atmosphere of taste. "We find more spirit, more 
tact in avoiding either trivial or conceited phrases, and altogether a presence, of merits, and 
an absence of defects which continues, as we read, to lengthen more and more the distance 
between Lord Derby and the foremost of his competitors." — London Quarterly Review, 
January, 1S65. 

" While the versification of Lord Derby is such as Pope himself would have admired, 
his Iliad is in all other essentials superior to that of his great rival. For the rest, if Pope is 
dethroned what remains? * * * It is the Iliad we would place in the hands of English 
readers as the truest counterpart of the original, the nearest existing approach to a repro- 
duction of that original's matchless feature."— Saturday Revieic. 

"Among those curiosities of literature which are also its treasures, Lord Derby's trans- 
lation of Homer must occupy a very conspicuous place. * * * Lord Derby's work is, on the 
whole, more remarkable for the constancy of its excellence and the high level which it 
maintains throughout, than for its special bursts of eloquence. It is uniformly worthy of 
itself and its author."— The Reader. 

" Whatever may be the ultimate fate of this poem— whether it take sufficient hold of 
the public mind to satisfy that demand for a translation of Homer which we have alluded 
to, and thus become a permanent classic of the language, or whether it give place to the still 
more perfect production of some yet unknown poet— it must equally be considered a 
splendid performance ; and for the present we have no hesitation in saying that it is by 
far the best representation of Homer's Iliad in the English language." 

AMERICAN USTOTICES. 

Tne Publishers' Circular says :— At the advanced age of sixty-five, the Earl of Derby, 
leader of the Tory party in England, has published a translation of Homer, in blank 
verse. Nearly all the London critics unite in declaring, with The Times, " that it is by 
far the best representation of Homer's 'Iliad' in the English language." His purpose 
was to produce a translation, and not a paraphrase— fairly and honestlv giving the sense 
of every passage and of every line. Without doubt the greatest of all living British orators, 
he has now shown high poetic. power as well as great scholarship. 

From the New York World :— " The reader of English, who seeks to know what 
Homer really was, and in what fashion he thought and felt and wrote, will owe to 
Lord Derby his first honest opportunity of doing so. The Earl's translation is devoid alike of 
pretension and of prettiness. It is animated in movement, simple and representative 
in phraseology, breezy in atmosphere, if we may so speak, and pervaded by a refinement 
of tastB which is as far removed from daintiness or effeminacy as can well be imagined." 



F£fi 



I4J949 









$ ^ 

- # % 















4 c° r % 






A v-v ■••■. V" 






%^1 

<5>*V '"A 



ifr 



< 
























3 s -%. -. 



v^^ 

*<!><< 










! / C 



%. 














v*» 



«* ^ 



PA 



:tf 






v 









\^ :. 



■f % 












.<« 



W : 










*W 



V 












#*" \ 



4s 




>. -6. * .ft 55 * Hr£. /: 






5? ^. 



\#* 



v 



< 









^-c 



\" Cl, \V ^o 






# 




